Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: Joey on August 12, 2002, 02:50:14 pm

Title: New Hampshire
Post by: Joey on August 12, 2002, 02:50:14 pm
I'm a newspaper reporter for The Ellis County Press, a conservative/libertarian/independent/Christian paper based 20 miles south of Dallas, Texas.

I read Walter Williams' column on World Net Daily last week and ever since then, I have been interested in the FSP. I am currently doing some research and interviews with folks about the FSP, seeing if it would actually work, and trying to find out if anybody else, besides me, would be willing to re-locate to New Hampshire in about 3-4 years.

Are there any Texans or anyone in particular that are fans of New Hampshire or the New England area?

When analyzing the state date on the FSP website, I found that, aside from the Nevada/Idaho region, New Hampshire would be an ideal spot to move to.


If you would like to help me with the story, feel free to contact me via e-mail or on my website:

http://www.joeydauben.com


I'll try to be a regular visitor to this forum. Thanks everybody.

;D
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: Charley on August 12, 2002, 07:50:09 pm
Also a newbe.  I spent last ecening reading thru most of the current forum topics and was surprised that there doesn't seem to be mush support for the state of Maine as a relocation spot.  I'm not sure why as it has:
More coastal area.
It is at the extreme end of the USA.
It borders Canada.
It is larger than NH
The soil is better and would support more farms.
There is a tolerable fishing industry.
No One has really tried to build the IT industry there. YET!
The people that I have met from Maine seem to be independently minded sorts.
AND  
The submarine manufacturing business is in NH not Maine. Do you think that the feds would let any state put the only sub shipyard under control of a libertarian (small L) government???

And, no I'm not from Maine.
Charley in West Chester
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: Joey on August 13, 2002, 02:51:58 pm

Maine is nice, yes...


But if you look at all of the state data the FSP has researched, you'll see that New Hampshire ranks real high on low taxes, low federal government dependency, high percentage of independent/third party voters and less government as a whole.


New Hampshire is probably the prettiest state ...well, from the pictures I've seen.


Has anybody else strongly considered New Hampshire?
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: mikegags on August 13, 2002, 03:11:58 pm
Also, I believe the population of ME is too high, according to the FSP guidelines.

Sure, geographically ME is better then NH. I am from NH, so realize where my loyalties lie. NH pretty much as everything else going for it over ME and almost any other state being considered (IMNSHO).

I think we should also consider which adjacent states could follow the movement when selecting the first state. I would think ME would follow NH, and in that case a NH & ME combo is much better than an ID & NV combo, especially when you consider the points you made above.

[Disclaimer: Might as well put this out now. I am a software engineer living in S-NH. There is no job market for me in states like ID & NV. NE states are my best bet, maybe DE.]

So let me get this straight, the navy yard is a NH company, but the island it sits on is in ME? So ME gets all the property and income taxes? Well, that's just dandy. We have absolutely the best govt money can buy!

Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: amyday on August 13, 2002, 03:30:12 pm
I do think NH is one of our best choices. I just wish it wasn't so close to mass. But being so close to mass allows people to live in NH and commute to Boston. There are alot of jobs down there. I do like the open spaces in Montana, and the lack of metropolitan areas, but that means there will be less jobs. It is going to come down to wether people feel they can make it with out being near a big city. I keep flipping on this myself. I think it comes from checking for jobs in the different states, and NH coming up with the best posibilities.
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: mikegags on August 13, 2002, 03:43:09 pm

I do think NH is one of our best choices. I just wish it wasn't so close to mass. But being so close to mass allows people to live in NH and commute to Boston. There are alot of jobs down there. I do like the open spaces in Montana, and the lack of metropolitan areas, but that means there will be less jobs. It is going to come down to wether people feel they can make it with out being near a big city. I keep flipping on this myself. I think it comes from checking for jobs in the different states, and NH coming up with the best posibilities.

Why is proximity to MA such a bad thing? It shouldn't matter at all. Or am I missing something?
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: amyday on August 13, 2002, 08:58:28 pm
The state government of mass is heavily leaning toward the opposite direction from where we want the FS to go. NH has a lot of immigrants from mass that bring their political views with them, and are speeding up NH's departure from freedom. I am just wondering about the continual influx of anti FS people, and the negative effect it will have on our efforts. I understand that where ever we go we will have nonsupporters coming in. I just think the fact that they can keep their jobs in mass and live in beautiful NH is encouragement. Also, more people live in metro Boston than the whole state of NH, lots more.
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on August 14, 2002, 04:02:26 am
I'm a big NH and DE supporter mainly becase of the outstanding job prospects of these two states compared to other states.  I think job prospects critical and are just a tiny hair less important than the total voting population.  This is why I like DE so much.  They have the best job prospects and have an extremely low voting population expecially in off year elections.  NH is wonderful for everything except low population where it is not that great.  But the local sentiments in NH I think would be really helpful to our cause plus I think the pro-Western front would accept this state more easily since there large areas with an extremely low population.
-Eddie
Title: New Hampshire Ballot Access
Post by: rhull on August 20, 2002, 02:56:43 pm
I see ballot access is easy in NH. Another + :)

From: http://politicsnj.com/August20_2002.htm


The New Hampshire State House of Representatives has 400 members, some running in districts with as few as 3,000 residents.  State Representatives earn $100 annually and have no staffs or offices, although they do receive a special license plate.  Nearly 800 Granite State residents filed last week to run for the lower house in the September 10th primary, but then again, filling for State Representative isn't a very difficult thing to do.  A prospective candidate can get on the ballot by obtaining the signatures of five registered voters in their district, or if they prefer not to go to the trouble of gathering the five signatures, they can go to their local Municipal Clerk's office and pay a $2 filing fee.
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: nevmoore on August 25, 2002, 07:25:04 pm
We live in MA, on Cape Cod, and I have been desperate to get out of this state for awhile. I have been independently researching New Hampshire (before I dicovered the FSP), and am determined to move there. It is, of course, beautiful, and has every kind of terrain except desert, within a geographically small area. There are abundant fresh water sources which are replentished by snowfall. There are no major urban areas. Low population. Travelling is easy and practical for both personal things, as well as FSP members getting together/meetings/lobbying.  Low crime rate. Good agriculture. The climate is not as extreme as some of the other proposed states. I agree that VT, and Delaware are similar in those respects, and I would consider those as well. The real estate prices in NH are just insanely LOW (compared to MA). A nice, quaint  farmhouse with a babbling brook, fruit trees, and a few acres can be had for under 150K. An identical property wher we live would start at 400K, but with no acreage because there isn't any. The rents in NH are cheap as well. Except for the Boston-commuter areas.   Great academics; good tech businesses for those in that field. A lot of plusses.... nev
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: Joey on August 25, 2002, 10:12:32 pm

Nev-

Do you have any idea how well that Ballot Initiative to Abolish the state Income Tax will fare in MA?

I'm a LP junkie and I'm following that all the time...I hear there's a poll that has 37% of voters approving the elimination of it. And what is your position on it?

You said you might consider moving to N.H. because of the low tax rate. I hear Mass. residents flock to N.H. to take advantage of the no sales tax deal.

It's hard to imagine how stupid people can be to keep electing the big government, tax-and-spend Dems/Reps there.

Okay, I'm rambling.

I know Carla Howell probably doesn't have a chance at the state capitol this year, but I hope the income tax thing passes.
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: nevmoore on August 26, 2002, 07:19:52 am
I don't think the income tax initiative will pass because it hasn't gotten enough coverage, not only to make people aware, but to have public debate. As is the argument from the *man in the street* is "well who would pay for our schools", etc.. Carla is just wonderful. What a strong and courageous person she is, probably not a realistic shot against the big boys like Romney, but only because she doesn't have the $$$ behind her to get public exposure and recognition. I will never figure out why people keep voting in who they do - my feeling is because people don't think they have any other choice, yet do want to be *responsible citizens* and vote. A good campaign slogan for someone like Carla would be "You DO have a choice!" . nev
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: percy, aka tntsmum on August 28, 2002, 05:09:54 am

We live in MA, on Cape Cod, and I have been desperate to get out of this state for awhile. I have been independently researching New Hampshire (before I dicovered the FSP), and am determined to move there. It is, of course, beautiful, and has every kind of terrain except desert, within a geographically small area. There are abundant fresh water sources which are replentished by snowfall. There are no major urban areas. Low population. Travelling is easy and practical for both personal things, as well as FSP members getting together/meetings/lobbying.  Low crime rate. Good agriculture. The climate is not as extreme as some of the other proposed states. I agree that VT, and Delaware are similar in those respects, and I would consider those as well. The real estate prices in NH are just insanely LOW (compared to MA). A nice, quaint  farmhouse with a babbling brook, fruit trees, and a few acres can be had for under 150K. An identical property wher we live would start at 400K, but with no acreage because there isn't any. The rents in NH are cheap as well. Except for the Boston-commuter areas.   Great academics; good tech businesses for those in that field. A lot of plusses.... nev
If it makes any difference to anyone... Southern Maine and New Hampshire have FABULOUS summer stock seasons. If you enjoy creative, local theatre, you'll NH.
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: mdlowry on September 18, 2002, 01:15:47 am


The submarine manufacturing business is in NH not Maine. Do you think that the feds would let any state put the only sub shipyard under control of a libertarian (small L) government???

Actually the subs are built in Groton, CT and Newport News, VA.

I spent too much time on them and am happy to be away from them now.  :)
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: caseykhan on September 18, 2002, 12:59:25 pm
You're right.  The Subs are built at a General Dynamics plant just up the stream from the CG Academy.  I don't know of any sub building up in NH.  If so, who builds them?
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: craft_6 on September 18, 2002, 01:15:38 pm
The single biggest drawback to New Hampshire is the population.  According to the state data page, NH had 567,000 voters in 2000, compared to less than 300,000 in Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Vermont.  South Dakota and Delaware had just over 300,000.  I would think that the states with fewer voters would be much easier for 20,000 people to influence, especially if we're talking about almost twice as many current voters.  (This number should also be compared for the upcoming 2002 elections.)

Maine (647,000) is even worse, and Idaho (488,000) and Montana (411,000) are also high relative to the smallest states.
Title: Re:FSP/New Hampshire
Post by: Elizabeth on September 18, 2002, 03:39:55 pm
Although I would love to move to NH, I agree that the population is a big problem.  For some reason, though, people seem to ignore that -- it consistently shows up highest in straw polls.  I suspect that NH will cross our upper pop threshhold before we move, and that's a very bad thing.
Title: New Hampshire: General Debate
Post by: mdw on October 01, 2002, 11:22:11 pm
A Stark Choice for New Hampshire: Slow Death by Taxes Hikes, or Tax Sanity

26 September 2002

In New Hampshire?s 1st district, Jeb Bradley will oppose new taxes, but his opponent, Martha Fuller Clark, has a record of supporting tax increases

WASHINGTON ? In the coming Congressional elections, voters in New Hampshire?s 1st district have a crystal clear decision: Do they vote for a candidate committed to holding the line on taxes, or for the candidate who has embraced every new tax increase in recent years?

Jeb Bradley has signed Americans for Tax Reform?s ?Taxpayer Protection Pledge,? which commits a candidate to oppose any and all attempts to increase marginal income tax rates, or to eliminate any
exemptions unless matched dollar for dollar by rate cuts elsewhere. His opponent, Martha Fuller Clark, has refused to take that pledge, demonstrating a willingness to raise taxes. In addition, she has voted for, and even sponsored, new taxes on income, transportation, golf, and video rentals.

?Jeb Bradley is a friend of New Hampshire taxpayers,? said taxpayer advocate Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. ?His promise not to raise taxes, and his record of strong opposition to a statewide property tax, show his commitment to low taxes and fiscal responsibility. It seems Martha Fuller Clark, on the other hand, has never met a tax she didn?t like!? Ms. Fuller Clark voted for the failed attempt to create a statewide income tax for the first time in New Hampshire history. She voted to apply a 5% tax on greens fees at New Hampshire golf courses, which would have cost New Hampshire golfers $3.5 million per year. And she personally sponsored two other tax
hikes ? allowing localities to increase the registration fees on all motor vehicles, and placing a tax on all video rentals across the state.

?Martha Fuller Clark is the New Hampshire taxpayer?s worst nightmare,? continued Norquist. ?She has a record of nickel-and-diming the people to fund trendy spending programs. Jeb Bradley has promised to oppose such taxes, and to look out for the interests of taxpayers.?


Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal and state tax increases. For more information or to arrange an interview please contact Jonathan Collegio or Paul Prososki at (202) 785-0266 or by email at jcollegio@atr.org or pprososki@atr.org.

--from http://www.atr.org/pressreleases/2002/092602pr.htm
Title: Re:Election 2002 and Taxes in NH
Post by: mdw on October 01, 2002, 11:28:09 pm
With an ax in hand, Fernald pushes pledge to end property tax
By JAMES W. PINDELL

CONCORD, September 26 – Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Fernald today said the race for governor isn’t about an income tax, it’s about the property tax.

Fernald, on the grounds of the state capital dressed in jeans and a thick red shirt, took an ax in his hand and chopped a piece of white pine labeled “ax the property tax.”

“The voters need to realize that Craig Benson would increase property taxes while I will cut them in half,” Fernald said.

The latest of press conferences is the third of its kind in a week and the latest in a saga of between the pair of candidates, with each using charts and numbers to show how their education funding plan will work and their opponent’s doesn’t.

Today, though, Fernald said Benson wasn’t just using “fuzzy math," but rather “phony math.” Fernald said this should be expected from a “political neophyte.”

Pundits beginning on election night said this race would be seen as a statewide referendum on an income tax. Benson, the Republican, has said he is steadfastly against any state sales or income tax.

Earlier in the week, Benson held a power point presentation looking at the impact of recently imposed income taxes in other states.

Benson showed studies saying that in other states, the income tax level increased as well as spending.

In response to today’s conference, Benson continued to say that Fernald’s plan add up.

“Mark is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He has repeatedly said that he won’t increase spending, but then the next thing he does is call for more money for some program,” Benson's policy director, Keith Herman, said.

Fernald may have used an ax and wood, but he wasn’t the only one today using props. The Benson campaign handed out “Fernald Tax Calculators” to the press. The simple pocket calculators had only numbers and plus signs (and no subtraction or equal signs), implying that taxes will only go up.

Fernald has long promoted his own tax calculator on his website that allows potential voters to see how much money they will save under his education funding plan.

The issue of frugality was again brought up by Fernald when he asked the question: “who do voters want? A candidate who drove his car into the ground or a candidate who drove his business into the ground?

-- from http://www.politicsnh.com/
Title: Re:Election 2002 and Taxes in NH
Post by: mdw on October 01, 2002, 11:36:41 pm
All of the above and other data on politicsnh.com is interesting because it provides some insight into the significance of the gubernatorial race underway in New Hampshire. Although there is an LP candidate running, the major parties are facing off over the issue of state taxation. The Republican candidate, Benson, is running on a platform of no new income or sales tax, while the Democrat, Fernald, has stated that he supports a statewide income tax. The outcome of this election will be an interesting indicator of the current politcal climate of the state, and will provide further current data on voter turnout, campaign expenditures, and regional breakdown of political alignment.

In some ways, the NH governor's race could re-affirm NH as the most popular FSP candidate state, or put it out of the running completely.

Regards,
mdw

FYI- Excellent breakdown of regional voter turnouts in NH at http://www.politicsnh.com/scala/index.shtml
Title: Re:Election 2002 and Taxes in NH
Post by: Victor VI on October 02, 2002, 12:06:27 am


In some ways, the NH governor's race could re-affirm NH as the most popular FSP candidate state, or put it out of the running completely.

Regards,
mdw



I'm not sure I'd consider a Democratic win a definitive statement of unsuitablity for a Free State. You have to keep in mind that the recent Liberal leaning of the state is largely due to being invaded by their Liberal neighbors from Massachusettes.  The old-timers might actually appreciate the support of the FSP in holding the line. Being welcome  and having natural allies in a state is an advantage that might be difficult to quantify by the numbers.

Title: Re:Election 2002 and Taxes in NH
Post by: Joey on October 02, 2002, 04:49:00 pm

Well, I'm watching the NH political scene as well, and I hope to God the liberals there don't vote themselves a state income tax.

But I've been called to New Hampshire in three years; I just hope I can afford a reasonable place to live and the like.


http://www.joeydauben.com
Title: Re:Election 2002 and Taxes in NH
Post by: Jacobus on October 02, 2002, 06:58:34 pm
I just moved to New Hampshire a couple of weeks ago (Hanover / Lebanon area).  Even though this is one of the most liberal Democrat areas of the state (if not the most) I see a lot more signs for the Republican candidates than the Democrat candidates.  Which may or may not mean anything, but if this election cycle is seen as a contest of taxes vs. no taxes, it might.  

One contest worth watching is the Senatorial race of Shaheen vs. Sununu.  Shaheen was the governor and is very liberal, and I don't know much about Sununu, but Shaheen's advertisements to shmear him make him out to be an anarcho-capitalist.  I hear "He voted to provide tax havens in the Caribbeans..." and I think- is this supposed to be a bad thing?

I've voted once so far- in 2000 - voted straight Libertarian where I could and Republican where I could not.  I was a minarchist then and, spurred by the election season to think about political philosophy and ethics, became a free market anarchist.  Having absorbed some lewrockwell.com and other anarchist propaganda, I thought I would go no-vote thereafter.  But after thinking more on it, though I know voting by itself is not the path to liberty, I think it can still be useful.  I haven't registered to vote here yet, but I probably will.  My reverse in decision concerning voting was influenced by reading Spooner, which I would suggest for the rabidly anti-vote people.  
Title: Re:Election 2002 and Taxes in NH
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 02, 2002, 08:01:03 pm
Yes, even when I was an anarchist, during college, I was never anti-voting.  I don't see the logical connection between anarchism and avoiding voting.  Spooner himself, as you point out, was not anti-voting, though he believed the ballots should be made public.  (Or perhaps he was just making a rhetorical point with this statement, that a social contract would be valid only if ballots had your signature and were made public?  It's been a while since I've read Spooner...)
Title: Re:Election 2002 and Taxes in NH
Post by: Michelle on October 02, 2002, 08:14:19 pm
Our LPNH gubernatorial candidate (http://www.babiarz.org) is doing extraordinarily well. He is being included in the televised debates, getting great press, and his message seems to be well-received.  

Here is a front-page article from the debate last night (it will be broadcast next week):

Gubernatorial hopefuls clash
over taxes, economic issues
By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief

DURHAM — Candidates for governor ended their day the way they began it yesterday: in a debate.

Republican Craig Benson, Democrat Mark Fernald and Libertarian John Babiarz debated the issues before a small audience and the cameras of New Hampshire Public Television last night. The debate will be aired on Oct. 9 at 7 p.m.

In a session that concentrated on economic issues, Fernald argued the state needs to change its tax system, Benson said the state needs to spend more efficiently, and Babiarz said state spending needs to be cut.

Fernald, an attorney and state senator from Sharon, said he blames the statewide property tax for the state’s problems with under-funded state services, development sprawl and a miserly approach to school funding. He favors an income tax to solve the state’s funding crisis.

He said lack of adequate funding leaves New Hampshire with “the only 19 towns in America that don’t have public kindergarten.” He said he considers K-12 education part of the state’s obligation to provide an adequate education to all children, and would phase it in over four years.

The state doesn’t need to raise any more money, he argued. It just needs to raise it more fairly.

Benson, wealthy co-founder of Cabletron Systems, said Fernald’s income tax idea will make it hard for small business to succeed, and will deter new businesses from moving into the state.

He said he wants to establish “opportunity regions” that will draw new businesses to areas of the state now hurting for jobs. He wants to diversify the state’s economic base of high technology jobs by adding biotechnology, pharmaceutical and financial service firms.

Benson said adding a new industrial base to the state’s economy will create jobs in depressed regional pockets, help New Hampshire college and high school graduates stay in the state to build their lives and diversify the state’s economy before another economic slowdown occurs.

He said he’d use his experience in the high tech field to boost the use of computer technology to make state government more efficient, both in the service it delivers and the cost to taxpayers.

Babiarz, a private businessman from Grafton, said state government has grown too big, with too many bureaucracies in place. Only by cutting the size of government can the state cut taxes, he said.

“We need to cut them for the sanity of taxpayers, because they’ve just about had it,” Babiarz said.

Fernald said that for most taxpayers, the income tax is the answer. Property taxes hit most heavily those who can afford it the least, he said.

“My grandmother pays 9 percent of her income to support her schools. I pay 3. And I suspect Mr. Benson pays less than 1 percent,” he said. “We’re not taxing the wealthy. We’re taxing the retirement income of many retirees.”

The three-man field touched on other issues as well: health care costs, changing the governor’s two-year term, the Second Amendment, environment, welfare reform, and gambling, but the exchanges on those topics were brief.

Babiarz, who thinks most decisions should be left to local government, included gambling as a local issue. It should not be handed over to a select group of special interests, he said.

Fernald said he is against expansion of gambling, saying “A lot of people see gambling as a magic bullet. But it’s not.”

Benson said he does not support gambling. He warned that while some predict it would bring $200 million in new revenue, it would be in the $50 million range because Massachusetts and other states would follow and their residents would no longer travel here to gamble.

Title: Re:Election 2002 and Taxes in NH
Post by: Michelle on October 02, 2002, 08:16:51 pm
And another:
http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/02/nh_gov_1002b.asp

The ‘i word’ (income tax) debated at gubernatorial candidates forum
By DAN TUOHY

N.H. Statehouse Writer

DURHAM — Democrat Mark Fernald avoids saying the I word, as in "income" tax, because it is an unpopular plan that will lead to bigger state government, his Republican opponent said Tuesday.

But, Fernald countered, Craig Benson’s nonspecific school plan would preserve the statewide property tax and do nothing to cap an expected budget deficit.

Libertarian John Babiarz joined Benson’s criticism of Fernald’s income tax plan during a forum at the University of New Hampshire.

"We know politicians can’t control themselves," he said.

Babiarz said an income tax would lead to a "spending binge" like the use of the tobacco settlement money, which lawmakers have mostly deposited into the state’s operating budget instead of anti-smoking efforts.

The focus of the forum was on the state of the economy, but how New Hampshire pays for education was raised after nearly every question. And yet, the candidates noted the issue is as much about tax fairness.

Benson, the co-founder of Cabletron Systems, said businesses are in some cases getting taxed unfairly and people on fixed incomes have trouble paying their property taxes. Complicating things, state education grants are not getting into classrooms, but are in many cases used by communities for tax relief, Benson said.

Fernald said his income tax plan is the best because it is based on one’s ability to pay. The 4 percent income tax would cut total state property taxes in half, exempt primary homes up to a value of $250,000, and provide renters credits.

His plan would repeal the business enterprise tax, which was enacted in the early 1990s after Benson sued the state because he said his company was paying 7 percent of state business profits taxes at the time.

Benson denied having anything to do with the creation of the business enterprise tax. He had sued the state and withheld $12 million in business taxes, but he said he bears no responsibility for the tax levied on most small businesses, from law firms to entrepreneurs.

"It was clearly what you were attempting to do," Fernald said.

Fernald also claimed that Benson relies on rosy revenue forecasts for the next state budget for 2004-05. Benson said his estimates, based on legislative budget figures, assume a 5 percent increase in state revenues. He wants to limit spending to no more than 3 percent annually and take other steps necessary to balance the budget without new taxes.

"What we need to do is live within our means," Benson said.

The economic picture, however, may not be that clear, according to Ross Gittell, UNH professor of management, who asked the candidates questions. He noted New Hampshire’s economy usually lags behind the national economy and, as such, may experience additional revenue losses.

The candidates spoke of the need to continue land conservation efforts and banning the use of MTBE in New Hampshire.

Fernald said the state’s confrontation with problems of sprawl was due to the tax climate. Communities push for continued development, while pushing away from affordable housing and putting off overdue investments in local schools, according to Fernald.

"We have made children the enemy," he said.

Benson called for spreading economic prosperity north of Concord by expanding the use of technology in government and maximizing the use of public-private partnerships.

Babiarz said the state should invest more in long-distance learning and reduce burdensome government regulations for businesses. The candidates said the state must attract more health insurance providers to lower the cost of health care.

The forum was sponsored by the Whittemore School of Business and Economics, the New Hampshire Business and Industry Association, and New Hampshire Public Television.

N.H. Statehouse Writer Dan Tuohy can be reached at 226-3633, or dtuohy@fosters.com
Title: Re:Election 2002 and Taxes in NH
Post by: Joey on October 04, 2002, 12:44:26 am

I can't believe Babiarz (spelling?) is getting on TV with the major party candidates.

But then again, the New Hampshire Union-Leader is, if I'm not mistaken, a very large conservative paper that seems favorable to Libertarians.

But it's good the three parties are duking it out. Liberal Democrats in New Hampshire? Hmm, never would have thought there would be a specific "area."

I could see more liberals down near the southern border...


Eh well.
Title: Re:Election 2002 and Taxes in NH
Post by: Jacobus on October 04, 2002, 08:40:46 am
Quote
Hmm, never would have thought there would be a specific "area."


Usually, where there is a major college, the area is liberal.  Dartmouth College is in Hanover, and it is also on the Vermont border, so it is to be expected that it's liberal around here.
Title: Yes! Move to NH
Post by: zippotony on October 13, 2002, 09:22:25 am


Yes, indeed!  Move to New Hampshire.  We can use the help.  I believe we currently have around 25,000 NRA members.  We can use more.  Great state! I am a lifer.  Mountains, coastline, four seasons.  Lots of people who believe in "Live Free or Die."  

Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Sons of Liberty on October 13, 2002, 06:13:25 pm
 ;D

Zippotony:

I'm in NH too, moving here 2 years ago from PA.  I was quite surprised at the number of liberty-loving individuals I have met here since then.  Unfortunately, the high quality of life up here is also attracting the socialists from below the Iron Curtain (MA-NH Border), so we need more freedom-lovers to start moving in.  

Best regards,
SOL
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Heyduke on October 14, 2002, 10:13:33 am
Zippotony--by 'lifer' do you mean, native of New Hampshire?  

SOl and ZT...as a native New Hampshirite, freedom lover, tax hater, personal rights supporter, I can honestly say that myself and the vast majority of those that I know in NH do NOT want more people moving in regardless of their political and philosophical views.  

For example...I have a proposed development up the road from me...I don't care if every house is owned by the dallas cowboy cheerleaders, or murray bookchin's cult of personality or charlton hestonites...I don't want the development built and I don't want anyone moving in.  Period.  This has been a longstanding irritation from native northern New Englanders--people move in, say 'my this place is beautiful!' and then bring in all the crap that they moved away from in the first place.  

Live Free or Die means--do what you want within an accepted societal value system.  It does not mean--wear your militia colors and fight the Feds.  Using the NRA as a fight symbol is no better or worse than using an abortion argument, a tax argument or personal privacy/freedom (from the home security/patriot act) argument.  It means be strong, be independant and respect each others opinions and views.  

FSP will rot from within if it relies upon a militia mentality.  


And SOL...it's funny seeing a 2 year resident from below the 'iron curtain' himself  referring to others as 'socialists'...I'm just going to leave that alone for now...
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Otosan on October 14, 2002, 05:32:25 pm
Now Heyduke you know how us southerns have felt for years about all those dang yankees moving down here....this will be payback....  ;D  ;D  ;D
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Heyduke on October 14, 2002, 06:03:02 pm
Well then, I guess you best start practicin' your Yankee accent and gettin' used to frigid winters and blackflies that'll suck you dry!  

gonna have to learn how to pronounce things right...

Berlin = Burr-ln

West Lebanon = West Leb or West Lebnin

Portsmouth = Potsmith

Nashua = Nashwah

Manchester = Manch Vegas

Somersworth = Scummersworth

thus ended the lesson...
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Solitar on October 14, 2002, 06:53:51 pm
MouseBorg,
Heyduke has hit the proverbial nail on the head.
One of my libertarian councilmember compatriots is all for freedoms and against planning and zoning and codes and all that -- except when it applies to building and such in HER neighborhood. That is the acid test or litmus test or crucible for any libertarian and libertarian movement. Can they get their libertarian members to be good neighbors and can they get themselves to tolerate the people next door.

Free Staters have to figure out how to make it work, how to move a thousand people into Goffstown without having everyone at each others throats and demanding more laws.

Goffstown the New England "town" of 17,000 people or the Village Center which you find on the map.
http://www.town.goffstown.nh.us/overview.shtml

I think it could be done - with a lot of tolerance, low profile living, and libertarianism from all involved.
Then again, maybe Heyduke is right.
It IS their town after all.

and THAT, dear all, is the essence of planning & zoning and covented communities -- protecting THEIR town from...
well whatever - outsiders, ugly houses, or just more houses - period.
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 14, 2002, 07:20:25 pm
I don't understand the anti-development mentality.  What is so bad about having people move in near you?  How does that fact reduce your quality of life?  If the problems have to do with traffic, pollution, and other negative externalities, then a free-market, private-property-rights policy regime will solve these problems, with market pricing on roads and torts for pollution.  But a growing population also has positive externalities, such as more diverse, cosmopolitan communities and economies, more leisure activities, etc.

Incidentally, New Hampshire's population growth has not been substantially above the norm for the U.S. over the last 20 years.  Of the states we're considering, the Dakotas and Maine are well below the normal rate of population growth, while Alaska and Idaho are well above it.
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Heyduke on October 14, 2002, 09:01:32 pm
Mouse Borg my friend, quoting Thomas Paine isn't necessarily a good thing...

I don't need folks to understand my viewpoint, but taking blurbs out of context for argument's sake certainly helps no one--that would be non constructive.  My intention is in pointing out that, thus far, you have received little obvious support from natives of any particular state.  There seems to be this pride mentality in which you are so certain that what you are involved in is better than anything that currently exists.  This is contradictory to my freedom (or interpretation of it) when your efforts are in direct conflict with those of myself and my neighbors.  This hubris, that you are looking down upon creation with a clearer perspective and greater understanding and purpose than I could possibly have, well, it sickens me to a degree.  I support some underlying principles of FSP, but not when it bears the promise of having 20,000 people shoved down my throat with the obvious intent to hijack the political system--and that is exactly what FSP would be doing.  

Jason--NH has experienced a growth in population, 'tis true...but compare land areas between the Dakotas, Maine, Alaska and NH--I do believe that you will find that NH has the highest population density of them all due to the obvious fact that NH is tremendously smaller than all of them, including its neighbor--Maine.  

So that's just some standard volleying--certainly interested in continuing this or similar threads, if for no other reason than to give you an opportunity to see a different perspective.  

And MouseBorg?  Nothing against you at all...as the name and symbol may allude, people aren't so high on the 'things I love the most' chart...
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Sons of Liberty on October 14, 2002, 09:11:37 pm

And SOL...it's funny seeing a 2 year resident from below the 'iron curtain' himself  referring to others as 'socialists'...I'm just going to leave that alone for now...


Heyduke:  Explain how it's funny that I referred to the socialists moving into NH when I moved to here from Pennsylvania?  Because PA is southwest of NH?  I don't follow.  

Also, I assure you that I have no intention of bringing any "crap" with me from where I came from, whatever that means.  Unfortunately, I am not a native of NH.  I have no control over where I was born.  I am now a resident , have no intention of leaving, and will try to contribute to improving NH.

Regards,
SOL      
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Mega Joule on October 15, 2002, 05:15:19 am

I don't understand the anti-development mentality.  What is so bad about having people move in near you?  How does that fact reduce your quality of life?

Some folks require more space than others in order to feel they have adequate privacy and freedom of movement.  Many of us would find new houses popping up everywhere, blocking the view, and crowding the neighborhood revolting.  I live in such a place being a native of CA.  I hate it here and resent every new building that goes up.  But alas, I can do nothing about it.  Being stuck in an environment I hate reduces my quality of life, and when I finally get out of here and find that perfect place in country I sure as heck don’t want 1,000 new neighbors suddenly moving into town.  Heck I don’t even want 10.  This is why I think one of the large western states would be a better choice.
Quote

 But a growing population also has positive externalities, such as more diverse, cosmopolitan communities and economies, more leisure activities, etc.

Those things are only positive if that is what you like.  What if you hate cosmopolitan communities and deliberately moved somewhere to avoid such?  And then all these strangers come flooding into your area and your dream home is shot to h**l.   My idea of leisure is hundreds of acres of solitude, but I cannot afford to buy that much quality of life.

Meg
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Solitar on October 15, 2002, 11:19:20 am
Quote
What if you hate cosmopolitan communities and deliberately moved somewhere to avoid such?  And then all these strangers come flooding into your area and your dream home is shot to h**l.   My idea of leisure is hundreds of acres of solitude, but I cannot afford to buy that much quality of life.
Meg, the western states are more urbanized than New England -- because people are clustered in bigger cities (see my stats on that in the more criteria thread and in a new thread listing the bigger cities.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=569

Your last sentence epitomizes a liberty-minded and anti-P&Z dilemma. A person loving wide-open spaces and distant neighbors buys ten acres in the middle of "nowhere". Then the place is discovered and a new housing development plops down next door and pretty soon you've got gas stations, convenience stores, etc. right there between you and your favorite fishing stream or rabbit-hunting area. Should you have used growth restrictions and Planning & Zoning ahead of time? Should you have bought a hundred acres? What to do? Or what to undo since, apparently, liberty-minded folks are against such P&Z regs. Yet like I said elsewhere, libertarians are great for more freedom -- until it has to apply to encroaching neighbors in their back yards.
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Mega Joule on October 15, 2002, 01:30:27 pm

Quote
What if you hate cosmopolitan communities and deliberately moved somewhere to avoid such?  And then all these strangers come flooding into your area and your dream home is shot to h**l.   My idea of leisure is hundreds of acres of solitude, but I cannot afford to buy that much quality of life.
Meg, the western states are more urbanized than New England -- because people are clustered in bigger cities […]


This is true, however their huge geographic size respective of the eastern states permits one to escape the handful of large cities, Montana for example has only six cities on your list with >20,000 and Wyoming has only three.  That leaves a lot of wide open space in between.
Quote

You last sentence epitomizes a liberty-minded and anti-P&Z dilemma. A person loving wide-open spaces and distant neighbors buys ten acres in the middle of "nowhere". Then the place is discovered and a new housing development plops down next door and pretty soon you've got gas stations, convenience stores, etc. right there between you and your favorite fishing stream or rabbit-hunting area. Should you have used growth restrictions and Planning & Zoning ahead of time? Should you have bought a hundred acres? What to do? Or what to undo since, apparently, liberty-minded folks are against such P&Z regs. Yet like I said elsewhere, libertarians are great for more freedom -- until it has to apply to encroaching neighbors in their back yards.

Exactly!  My husband and I debate this issue regularly and have never yet found a mutually acceptable approach.  He argues that P&Z regs restrict peoples freedom to live and build where they want.  I agree.  However, not having such regulations violates my freedom to live where and how I want with some reasonable expectation that my location choice will not be radically altered.  He argues that one can simply move.  I argue back that I could move, but I should not have to leave my home that I have invested some significant portion of my life in just because some rich developer wants to build 300 new homes or some industrial chemical plant thinks it is a great place for a factory.

I do not know how liberty-minded folks can resolve this.  I can see the validity of both sides of the argument.  What are your thoughts?

Meg
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Jefferonian Democr on October 15, 2002, 01:36:33 pm
I was born and grew up in NH and left after graduating from UNH in 1975.  I'm currently living in Texas.  I've just learned about FSP, after thinking about the concept for years I was astonished to find out such a movement existed.   I immediately signed up.  Of course I will go where ever it is decided but moving back to NH would have it's appeal.  

I think there are many advantages to NH, or there used to be.  One of the biggest disadvantages I see is the large amount of refugees from the Peoples Republic of Massachussets that have already settled in Southern NH and brought their bad ideology with them.  I was back visiting family a couple of weeks ago and heard that a candidate for governor was talking about introducing an income tax.  Such a thing would have been unheard of even 5 years ago, but since a large part of people are already paying NR tax to Mass. it must be more acceptable these day's.  I fear NH may be too far down the road to bigger government than a lot of people may realize, at least it seems that way from my perspective.  



Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 15, 2002, 03:25:16 pm

I do not know how liberty-minded folks can resolve this.  I can see the validity of both sides of the argument.  What are your thoughts?


What about getting a bunch of anti-development, anti-P&Z people together and buying a single bloc of several hundred acres?  Then they could perhaps contract with each other not to sell off or subdivide their land in perpetuity.
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Barbara on October 15, 2002, 03:30:42 pm

Exactly!  My husband and I debate this issue regularly and have never yet found a mutually acceptable approach.  He argues that P&Z regs restrict peoples freedom to live and build where they want.  I agree.  However, not having such regulations violates my freedom to live where and how I want with some reasonable expectation that my location choice will not be radically altered.  He argues that one can simply move.  I argue back that I could move, but I should not have to leave my home that I have invested some significant portion of my life in just because some rich developer wants to build 300 new homes or some industrial chemical plant thinks it is a great place for a factory.

I do not know how liberty-minded folks can resolve this.  I can see the validity of both sides of the argument.  What are your thoughts?

Meg



Liberty minded folks understand that property rights protect their use of their property so long as their use does not infringe on the rights of others.  However, no one has a right to live without neighbors one does not like, nor to control anothers' use of his or her property.  

So, you can buy up enough property that you don't have to worry about what your neighbors are building in proximity to your home, or move, or live with it.  But the minute you impose P&Z on others' use of their property, you have left liberty-mindedness behind, and worse, you are no longer able to take a principled stand for liberty in any other area.
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 15, 2002, 06:28:58 pm
Well, I've read that population growth is actually levelling out in the U.S. and has already turned negative in Europe.  I think they're predicting that world population will stabilise at 10 billion or so in 2050 and then start declining.
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 16, 2002, 07:19:19 am
Check this sucker out:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html
It looks as if world population doesn't quite level out in 2050, but it's close to it, and pop is only 9 billion.

Humans are different from other species, in that we are the only ones that can intentionally restrict procreation without restricting copulation, through contraceptives.  There is a very clear correlation between growth in per capita income and female education on the one hand and declining birth rate on the other.  As the 3rd World lifts itself out of poverty, and especially if time can break down Islam's crushing effects on women, their birth rates will decline, eventually to 1st-World levels, which are right now well below the population replacement rate:
http://econ.la.psu.edu/~dshapiro/463iiib.htm
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Mark Alexander on October 16, 2002, 01:44:17 pm

What about getting a bunch of anti-development, anti-P&Z people together and buying a single bloc of several hundred acres?  Then they could perhaps contract with each other not to sell off or subdivide their land in perpetuity.

That sounds reasonable.  But what about neighbors who've already bought their land separately and perhaps even built their homes.  Could they then contract with each other to not sell off or subdivide their land?  Would such a contract hold water, legally speaking?
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 16, 2002, 06:28:49 pm


What about getting a bunch of anti-development, anti-P&Z people together and buying a single bloc of several hundred acres?  Then they could perhaps contract with each other not to sell off or subdivide their land in perpetuity.

That sounds reasonable.  But what about neighbors who've already bought their land separately and perhaps even built their homes.  Could they then contract with each other to not sell off or subdivide their land?  Would such a contract hold water, legally speaking?



Well, I should think it would hold water.  If those contracts aren't binding under current law, that's something we can work for in the free state certainly.
Title: New Hampshire voters
Post by: Jim1 on October 19, 2002, 03:06:42 pm
The article below is about the current New Hampshire senate race, but it also reveals much about New Hampshire voters. For example, it says that one third of the residents have moved in within the last decade. It also says that they are fiscally conservative like the existing residents but are socially liberal on issues like abortion.

There is much more, and it would be useful if folks from New Hampshire can confirm or correct this article.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-10-17-newhampsen-usat_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-10-17-newhampsen-usat_x.htm)

Title: NH Foliage Photos
Post by: Michelle on October 22, 2002, 07:00:53 pm
If anyone is interested, we were up in the White Mountains this past weekend and I took a few photos. It was kind of a dreary weekend (overcast and drizzly), but the colors are gorgeous anyhow.

http://www.distinctiveweb.com/photos/index.html

I find it really fascinating that there are many here who perceive NH as too crowded. That is not my experience of NH at all. We are working on the LP campaigns, so things are really hectic right now, but after the elections, we are taking a trip up to Northern NH (around Pittsburgh), and I can post a few photos from that area if anyone is interested.
Title: Re:NH Foliage Photos
Post by: Shayde on October 22, 2002, 07:34:10 pm
Those were GORGEOUS!!  Thanks for sharing them!   :D
Title: Re:NH Foliage Photos
Post by: Jacobus on October 23, 2002, 06:52:22 am
On the down side to NH, though, we just got our first snow  :(
Title: Re:NH Foliage Photos
Post by: Michelle on October 23, 2002, 07:39:46 am
LOL! I was wondering if I should take a photo of my backyard this morning.   :P  Realistically though, I can't remember the last time we had such an early snow. The earliest is usually around Thanksgiving and even that is early - especially near the coasts. Hopefully the sun will come out and this will all be gone by tomorrow.
Title: Re:NH Foliage Photos
Post by: Shayde on October 23, 2002, 09:31:50 am
This may be an early snow for NH but we had our first snow like 2 weeks ago.  Today it is only 23 degrees out and it was snowing yesterday too.  The bad news it this is NOT really that early for us.   :-\   It is always cold and snowy by Halloween and you have to design your kid's costume to fit over their big, winter coat.
Title: Re:NH Foliage Photos
Post by: Mark Alexander on October 25, 2002, 01:36:35 pm

If anyone is interested, we were up in the White Mountains this past weekend and I took a few photos.

Wow.  We Californians don't get anything like that.

I do have to say, though, that posting such beautiful pictures should not be allowed on this forum  ;) .  It causes readers to lose all sense of rationality in trying to decide which state we should pick.  If  beautiful countryside were the key factor, NH would be near the top of the list.  Unfortunately, we have to consider low population as well.

Quote

I find it really fascinating that there are many here who perceive NH as too crowded.

I've never been to NH, but my impression is that there are plenty of places where you can get "away from it all", especially in the mountains.  The somewhat high total population seems like a much bigger concern, however.
Title: Re:NH Foliage Photos
Post by: Jacobus on October 25, 2002, 05:40:13 pm
I thought the colors this year were lackluster, which I think can be attributed to the lack of rain this summer.  There were a lot of mustard-like colors.

Off topic, but NH people might appreciate this: the other day Katrina Swett and her entourage were in Lebanon waving at passersby.  My middle finger waved back.  
Title: Re:New Hampshire voters
Post by: Jim1 on October 25, 2002, 08:22:40 pm
One cause for concern is that this article predicts that New Hampshire will reelect its Governor, a Democrat.
Title: Re:New Hampshire voters
Post by: Steve on October 26, 2002, 09:55:53 am
This week's Economist has an article about the New Hampshire Senate race, and it says a lot about the people there.  Unfortunately, the text is not available on their web site, so I will copy it here, and put in a plug for The Economist: it's a great magazine, nearly libertarian, and certainly beats TimeNewsweek.

http://www.Economist.com

---------------------------------
Natural-born Republicans

Oct 24th 2002 | DURHAM
From The Economist print edition

NEW Hampshire has an ambivalent relationship with the Bush dynasty. This rural enclave was the only state in New England to vote for George Bush in the 2000 presidential election, giving him four vital electoral votes. But its presidential primary has seldom been kind to the Bushes. In 1992 George Bush senior beat Pat Buchanan by an insultingly small margin for a sitting president; this was to be a warning of disaster to come. In 2000 his son lost to John McCain, igniting an internal Republican revolt that was only stopped by dark deeds in South Carolina.

Now the state has a chance to determine whether President Bush can push his ambitious legislative agenda through Congress. Republicans will be hard-pressed to win control of the Senate if they allow their hold over New Hampshire to be broken. But Jeanne Shaheen, the Democratic candidate, is putting up a strong fight against her Republican rival, John Sununu, and stands an even chance of becoming the first Granite State Democrat elected to the Senate since 1975.

New Hampshire has 245,791 registered Republicans, compared with 242,028 independents and just 170,405 Democrats. The culture of the state, from its motto (“Live free or die”) to its laisser-faire attitude to adults wearing seat-belts, is thoroughly Republican. The state has one of the lowest tax burdens in the country and no income tax. Republicans control both statehouses and both congressional seats.

The easiest way to get applause in a political meeting is to make a joke about Teddy Kennedy, a man who combines the sins of being a big-government liberal with the even worse sin of coming from Massachussets. It's not for nothing that two of America's most amusing conservative writers, Mark Steyn and P. J. O'Rourke, have houses in New Hampshire.

The Republican establishment also succeeded in engineering a coup during its primary, getting rid of their embarassing incumbent, Bob Smith. Mr Smith had alienated Republicans, both locally and nationally, by leaving the party in a sulk when his bid for the presidency went nowhere, denouncing the Republicans on the Senate floor, and then rejoining them in return for a committee chairmanship. Internal party polls also showed that Mr Smith was likely to lose to Ms Shaheen.

Mr Sununu is a much sounder candidate than his predecessor: a three-term congressman whose father was the state's governor before becoming Bush senior's chief-of-staff. He makes up for his Vulcan-like manner with a willingness to stand up for his principles and a wry sense of humour. He will also get a filip from Craig Benson, a software millionaire, who is boosting the Republican cause by spending over $10m on the governor's race.

Yet Mr Sununu is struggling to capitalise on this natural advantage. A month ago, the polls put him ahead of Ms Shaheen by as much as ten points. Now the lead seems to be alternating, though the latest poll, from the American Research Group, puts Mr Sununu ahead by eight points.

Mr Sununu faces two big problems. The first is the bitter legacy of the Republican primary. A significant number of Mr Smith's supporters plan to take revenge by staying at home, writing in Mr Smith's name, or even voting for Ms Shaheen. Conservatives complain that, thanks to the establishment's double-dealing, the number of “movement” conservatives in the congressional delegation has shrunk from three in 1993 to none today. Buchananites sneer at Mr Sununu's father. Meanwhile some moderates worry that Mr Sununu is not as green as Mr Smith.

The impact of all this is not clear. A poll earlier this month by the survey centre at the University of New Hampshire found that one in four Republicans who voted in the primary would vote for Ms Shaheen. Some analysts speculate that 2-3% of Republicans may write in Mr Smith's name. The closeness of the election and the size of the stakes in Washington will probably reduce both these numbers. But the party's internal squabbles have undoubtedly diverted energy and resources. So far, Ms Shaheen has spent over $5m on the race—about $2m more than Mr Sununu.

The second problem is Ms Shaheen herself. The three-term governor is a dream candidate for the Democrats: a moderate who supports Mr Bush on tax cuts and Iraq but nevertheless endorses a slew of Democratic spending projects. Ms Shaheen is one of life's head-girls; her fixed smile and Goody-Two-shoes manner give her an uncanny resemblance to the anti-hero of “Election”, a film about an insufferable girl who will do anything to become senior class president. But she is making a good job of reaching out to the state's vital independents, painting Mr Sununu as a right-wing ogre and emphasising her friendship with Jim Jeffords, the only independent in the Senate.

The closeness of the race means that New Hampshire is saturated with politics. Radio programmes are interrupted every few minutes by political advertisements. Every lawn has sprouted a sign. The two campaigns will probably end up spending $15m on the Senate race—an astonishing figure, when you consider that only 300,000 people will turn out to vote.

Whoever wins on November 5th, Arab-Americans will have something to celebrate. Mr Sununu is part-Palestinian and part-Lebanese. Jeanne Shaheen is married to a Lebanese-American. New Hampshire, a state which is often criticised for forcing America's primary candidates to parade before an all-white audience, is about to do its bit for the fortunes of one of America's most overlooked ethnic minorities.
Title: Re:NH Foliage Photos
Post by: firefox702 on October 26, 2002, 12:13:01 pm





IT'S COLD THERE!!!!!!
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: BillG on October 27, 2002, 04:23:32 pm
In my opinion the way around the whole p&z, sprawl, high cost of housing/land debate is to insure that all 20K liberty loving peoples moving to NH are also fully behind the teachings of Henry George's single tax on land idea:

http://www.progress.org/geonomy/

Then we could also put together a coalition of libertarians and Greens to really makes some waves!

http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/greenlibertarians.html

Has everyone also read John McGlaughry's (head of Ethan Allen institute in VT) seminal book: "the Vermont Papers" fascinating -

"This book is an earnest, detailed blueprint to transform Vermont, shrinking the state government by three-quarters and returning power to the towns and a new entity, the shire (an area somewhat smaller than a county). Vermont would, in the Swiss manner, become a federation of autonomous cantons, here not working with Swiss precision but rather a "healthy chaos" of cantankerous Yankee republics. Back to the towns and shires go welfare, education, the lower courts, roads, and much taxation. In a reversal of the usual order, all unspecified powers are reserved by the town and shire, not the state. The state looks after civil rights and the environment (but no prissy ordinances against leaving a junk car or three in the dooryard); runs a supreme court; and administers all sundry financial matters. This shrunken state government is Ereed up to lobby the Federal government and play a world role (through die Office of Global Involvement). "Our reform abandons the way of government currently in favor: education by mega-standards, welfare by mailbox, police protection by radio, and health care by stranger," say the authors. If the roads and schools vary from shire to shire, then that is the price of democracy. The bulk of the book is taken up with the intricate details of this new goverturient, including everything from creating heraldry and pageants for the shire to a ten-point program for agriculture and a timetable for a Vermont constitutional convention to set their plan in motion

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0930031318/qid=1035753594/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-2008458-3776641?v=glance&n=507846#product-details

Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 27, 2002, 05:38:53 pm

In my opinion the way around the whole p&z, sprawl, high cost of housing/land debate is to insure that all 20K liberty loving peoples moving to NH are also fully behind the teachings of Henry George's single tax on land idea:

http://www.progress.org/geonomy/


Well, I should emphasize that we are not necessarily moving to NH.  It is one of the 10 candidate states.  As to the land tax idea, it certainly isn't a new one and people have lots of opinions about it.  You probably won't find too many Georgists in our group, but I should think they'd be welcome, so long as they are committed to repealing income, property, and sales taxes.
Title: NH should not be picked...
Post by: JT on October 28, 2002, 11:35:03 pm
I realize many people are gung ho about NH, but it is simply too small.  It has many pros, but the size of the state should immediately strike it from the list.  We don't just want 20k people, we want much more than that to show up.  I would feel much too crowded in that state.  I realize there is lots of rural land, but there won't be for long once people start buying up 40-60 acre parcels.  IMO the only Eastern state that should be considered is ME because of its size and isolation.  Personally, I think we should be leaning toward MT or ND.  I know there are many (sub)urbanites in the FSP, but I think there will be more people who want at least moderate isolation and I honestly don't think NH would provide that.  What criteria are we going to use to start the narrowing down process?  For me, SIZE matters!  ;)

Ok, fire away...
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Mark Alexander on October 29, 2002, 10:39:26 am

I realize many people are gung ho about NH, but it is simply too small.

I share your concern. But in another thread, the argument was made that small size has some advantages for political candidates, since it's easier for them to travel around their districts and schmooze with voters.  This is especially important for candidates not in the two major parties.

My impression of NH is that there is still enough space for those who want it.  Also, not all FSPers are going to want or need or even be able to afford 40-60 acres.  Some might be happy in (gasp!) towns or cities.  I 'm somewhat of a hermit, but  I would be happy with a modest amount of land, as little as five acres perhaps.  I hope someone from NH will enlighten us about the practicality of these matters.


Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Rearden on October 29, 2002, 10:50:28 am
I feel just as strongly in the opposite direction.  We should choose either NH, VT, or Delaware for their proximity to large cities.  DE even has Wilmington, which has a quarter-million in its MSA.  The reason we should go with a state close to large cities, besides the fact that many classical liberals also happen to like urban life, is that it seems to me that a core component of our strategy to prove that liberty works as an economic policy should be to lure major manufacturers/employers away from existing urban centers, which without exception are overtaxed.  If we chose DE, for instance, it would be easy to convince insurance companies, banks, etc. to move there from Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York (all within three hours).  It will be exceptionally difficult to accomplish this in the isolated states of the west.  

Another benefit of choosing an East Coast state is that finding jobs for 20,000 people will be exponentially easier.  The housing/job infrastructure is in place.  Also. consider that DE only has (I think) five counties.  It will be exceptionally easy to dominate it's political scene.

For those in the FSP who like space, don't worry.  The southern half of DE, as well as the northern 2/3 of VT and NH, remain wide open spaces, with cheap land and low development pressures.  
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Michelle on October 29, 2002, 11:00:18 am
What type of data would ease your concerns? I'll see what I can find.

As you mentioned, the fact that the state is small in area is a huge advantage for candidates and would also be a huge advantage to FSPers needing to meet for regular strategic planning meetings, activism and outreach opportunities, etc.

Honestly, NH is small, but it is anything but crowded. I'm not sure how to convey this without having people actually visit NH, though. Just this past weekend, we were driving around putting out candidate signs and I was wishing I had some way to show FSPers all of the open space, homes for sale, and land for sale in even the part of the state with the densest population. I truly don't believe that 20,000 FSPers (maybe 12,000 households) would make more than a dent.
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Michelle on October 29, 2002, 11:07:21 am
I thought this article may be interesting to those researching NH (it is also relevant to ME and VT):

http://www4.fosters.com/news2002/oct_02/oct29_02/news/reg_nh1029a.asp

New Hampshire ranks as safest state
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire was the safest state in the country in 2001, according to FBI statistics.

The statistics released Monday showed New Hampshire had 29,233 crimes committed in 2001, a rate of 2.3 crimes per 100 residents. That is a drop from 30,068 from 2000, or 2.4 crimes per 100 residents.

Total crime includes violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, and property crime of burglary, larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft.

Maine and Vermont also ranked among the safest states.

Maine ranked fifth with 34,588 crimes, a rate of 2.7, a_ slight increase from the preceding year when there were 33,400 crimes, a rate of 2.6.

Vermont had 16,978 crimes, a rate of 2.8, compared with 2000 when it had 18,185 crimes for a rate of 3.0. Massachusetts was 3.1, a slight increase from 2000.

Arizona had the highest rate, 6.1, among the states, while the District of Columbia had a rate of 7.7.

The number of U.S. crimes rose last year for the first time in a decade, an increase that coincided with an economic downturn that many experts say played a key role. Murder, armed robbery, rape and burglary all were higher in 2001, the report said.

There were 4,160 crimes per 100,000 people in the United States last year, up slightly from the 4,124 per 100,000 recorded the previous year.

Cities with populations between 250,000 and 500,000 had the largest increase in crimes at 4.1 percent, according to the FBI. The largest cities, those with more than 1 million inhabitants, saw crime rise only by a half percentage point, while suburban and rural counties saw crime increases of 2.4 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively.

"The economy has to be the prime suspect," said James Lynch, professor at American University’s Department of Justice, Law and Society.

The crime index increased 2.1 percent last year, the FBI said in its annual report drawn from 17,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide. That marked the first year-to-year increase since 1991.

Still, the number of crimes is 18 percent lower than a decade ago and 10 percent fewer than in 1997.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 29, 2002, 12:20:17 pm

If New Hampshire is "too small" then so are Delaware and Vermont.
Maine is the only viable east coast choice ;D
since it has more private land area than Alaska or Idaho.


Well, amount of private land surely can't outweigh those 630,000 voters can it? ;)  Maine continually ends up rock-bottom in the quantitative analyses I'm doing... It might do better if amount of private land were included, but not much, since it's far behind even the #9 state (usu. Montana, and Montana does best on that particular measure).
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Rich T. on October 29, 2002, 12:28:10 pm


I realize many people are gung ho about NH, but it is simply too small.

small size has some advantages for political candidates, since it's easier for them to travel around their districts and schmooze with voters.

My impression of NH is that there is still enough space for those who want it.  Also, not all FSPers are going to want or need or even be able to afford 40-60 acres.  Some might be happy in (gasp!) towns or cities.  I 'm somewhat of a hermit, but  I would be happy with a modest amount of land, as little as five acres perhaps.  I hope someone from NH will enlighten us about the practicality of these matters.


I'll do my best. NH isn't crowded. Even the cities of Nashua, Manchester and Portsmouth feel sparse compared to the Boston metro area.

Once you get outside the main population centers there are towns that don't even have 1 state rep to themselves (and that's in a 400-seat legislature). Drive up 93 past Concord and you see nothing but trees and mountains.

If you want to be invisible to your nearest neighbors, stick to the western and northern parts of the state. If you want a multi-acre lot, there's plenty available, sometimes it's easier to find big lots than small ones, depending on the area.

The small size and number of seats makes running for office easier, than just about any other state. The redistricting made it less ideal than it was, but you can still run a real campaign for state rep for less than $1000.
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Rich T. on October 29, 2002, 12:35:13 pm

I don't understand the anti-development mentality.  What is so bad about having people move in near you?


The problem comes from having your nice "private" area with lots of undeveloped land get "suddenly" torn up by a condo complex or a new subdivision. People don't like having their view spoiled. And if the development is near your property, the construction noise can be a serious problem.

It's also a perpetual thing to complain about in NH, sort of like the Red Sox and school funding.
Title: Re:Yes! Move to NH
Post by: Rich T. on October 29, 2002, 12:43:03 pm

I think there are many advantages to NH, or there used to be.  One of the biggest disadvantages I see is the large amount of refugees from the Peoples Republic of Massachussets that have already settled in Southern NH and brought their bad ideology with them.  I was back visiting family a couple of weeks ago and heard that a candidate for governor was talking about introducing an income tax.  Such a thing would have been unheard of even 5 years ago, but since a large part of people are already paying NR tax to Mass. it must be more acceptable these day's.  I fear NH may be too far down the road to bigger government than a lot of people may realize, at least it seems that way from my perspective.


Yeah, good old Mark Fernald is doing a wonderful job of destroying the Democrat Party in NH. To my knowledge, there are no state reps or state senators running on the income tax. Even if he wins (which I don't see happening unless John Babiarz and Craig Benson split enough conservative and independent support to make it a near-tie), he'll have no support in the legislature. Recent estimate I heard was that the Dems would lose up to 30% of their seats.

Yes, paying the non-resident tax to MA has softened the resistance (though few realize that an income tax in NH wouldn't bring any of that money back), and the state's lack of a solution to funding education has brought people to the conclusion that it's the only way left.

I really think the Left hit their high-water mark in this state and we are swinging back to more traditional NH ideology on many issues.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Rearden on October 29, 2002, 12:50:00 pm

If New Hampshire is "too small" then so are Delaware and Vermont.
Maine is the only viable east coast choice ;D
since it has more private land area than Alaska or Idaho.
If you don't believe the above, see the tabulation at this link.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=247;start=60

VT =  9,273 sq. miles and 608,827 people
DE = 1,933 sq. miles and 783,600 people
NH = 8,992 sq. miles and 1,235,786 people
MA = 7,826 sq. miles and 6,349,097 people



I do not believe that "private land area" is a very important factor -- as we begin to implement our classical liberal agenda, which will, regardless of the state chosen, certainly include transferring at least some publicly owned land to private hands, the amount of private land area will decrease as a matter of course.  Again, I reject the premise that NH, VT, or even DE is "too small."  Can we all have 3000 acre spreads?  Of course not, but we can all have as much land as we can afford in each state.  Land per acre is slightly more expensive in DE, as it is obviously the most dense, but not exponentially so.  The cost of land as a factor pales in importance next to economic viability, and in my opinion that ranking would be 1. Delaware 2. New Hampshire 3. Vermont 4. Maine, followed by the western states.  This ranking is admittedly subjective, but my overall point is, I think, undisputable:  It would be much easier to lure residents, and, more importantly, jobs, to an east coast state in close proximity to the existing major employment centers.  

For the sake of argument,  consider the following scenario:  there are two free states, Delaware and Wyoming.  Both enact similar reforms, lowering taxes and expanding personal freedoms.  Now, which state is more likely to land a corporation looking to relocate, say, Bank of America?  Delaware is enviably located in the middle of the country; Wyoming, for all its beauty, is far from its customers and employees.  My point is that companies like to be close to their base, and, as the densest region, the Northeast has that advantage.  
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: caseykhan on October 29, 2002, 01:48:38 pm
I lived in New Jersey for many years.  It is one of the most densely populated states.  Yet even in New Jersey, they don't live on top of each other quite as badly as they do out here in Arizona.  I could never understand why Arizona, a state with so much wide open space, has such a shortage of land.  I later learned that the federal government owns a significant portion of land through the parks, national monuments, and the BIA.

I never thought I would consider an eastern state until I realized just how much land is controlled by the feds here in the west.    
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 29, 2002, 03:24:28 pm

Jason,
When Maine ends up below Delaware, Vermont, and the Dakotas in your analyses then
1) you are ignoring some pretty important criteria and I wonder why I keep digging for more
2) you are turned off on Maine because of a personal image made by how some locals in a Maine Restaurant looked at you. You then have not been in conservative, redneck, ranching or mining areas of the west where elk and sheep are higher on the scale than tourists and newcomers (which are lower than tourists)


Not at all - this is purely quantitative, on the basis of the important variables on the website.  Try it out for yourself, either on the state comparison matrix, or on the Rank the States page:
http://www.freestateproject.org/ranking.htm
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Rearden on October 29, 2002, 03:26:27 pm

Quote
For the sake of argument,  consider the following scenario:  there are two free states, Delaware and Wyoming.  Both enact similar reforms, lowering taxes and expanding personal freedoms. Now, which state is more likely to land a corporation looking to relocate, say, Bank of America?
CitiBank is in South Dakota. See this link why...
http://www.state.sd.us/governor/Press/Releases/1999/january/citibank.htm

But regarding large corporations, be very, very, very careful what you wish for.
They can, and have (and in some cases do) OWN a state.

Insurance companies? They love government that mandates auto insurance, worker's compensation insurance (provided by private companies). Health providers benefit from government and especially from government restricting a "free market" in doctors, prescription drugs, etc. Banks love government too - the regs enable them to maintain oligopolies and to literally print, in a cyber sense, money.

I'd venture to say  more conservative northern New England and western states would lure more conservative companies with liberty-minded employees (logging, mining, hi-tech thinkers, etc). Delaware would lure more companies with more socialist employees (insurance, health, banking)


Joe and Mouseborg, you have a strong argument -- I have to give you credit.  I'll attempt to refute:

Joe, you argue that Delaware would lure more companies with socialist leanings.  Delaware happens to be home to MBNA, the world's largest issuer of credit cards.  Why did MBNA choose to relocate from Baltimore to Wilmington?  Because MD has a maximum interest rate, while DE does not.  Freedom lured MBNA to DE, in this case the freedom to make contracts with customers that place them stupidly in ever more debt.  Maryland chose to believe that I, as a citizen, must be protected from myself; that I cannot be trusted to make my own decisions regarding my finances.  As a result my state lost a company that employs thousands in well-paying jobs.  A bank moved to a state with at least some libertarian leanings.

Conversely, do you really think that logging and mining companies will not attempt to use their wealth to influence our government?  Do you think that paper giant Weyerhauser does not employ lobbyists or donate to PACs?  I suggest that any company, either singly or in groups (such as a small business group) will attempt to have laws passed to benefit them, or defeat laws that go against them.  Government can be used to help or hurt any industry, any company.  It will be up to us as responsible citizens, as watchdogs of liberty, to elect and monitor leaders who will be immune to this influence.  This influence is found in every statehouse in America, whether in Maine or North Dakota or California.

I'll let you in on a little secret:  I work for the Maryland General Assembly.  It is the great irony of my life -- I am employed by the very entity I destest -- a socialist government.  I see this influence, from all corners, on a daily basis.  Just today my office, on the request of a group representing broadcast talent, began drafting a bill to ban non-compete clauses in contracts.  I fully expect a lengthy letter from the broadcasters imploring us to withdraw the bill.  It will be fought over in the halls of Annapolis, and 181 people will decide, after being lobbied and wooed and schmoozed.  

Joe and Mouseborg, this type of influence will come from every company, large and small, banking and mining, in the free state.  It is inevitable.  If a company "OWNS" a state, as you suggest, it is completely due to the failure of that state's citizens to monitor their lawmakers.  What we must do differently than socialist state governments is to watch our elected officials like hawks and question their every move.  
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 29, 2002, 03:40:51 pm
Sure - I'm just holding off on including them until their relevance and role can be adequately defined... Including a lot of really minor variables would probably just cause information overload without affecting the results.  If you can come up with a list of variables that you think are important but haven't been included yet, Matt and I will take a close look at them.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Rearden on October 29, 2002, 03:50:31 pm

If you can come up with a list of variables that you think are important but haven't been included yet, Matt and I will take a close look at them.


Please consider including job proximity.  Define the variable as all jobs within the given state's borders and within a reasonable commute outside them (50 miles).  This would take into account both job availability for incoming FSP members and a rough measure of the number of jobs that may easily relocate to take advantage of the FSP's business-friendly nature.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 29, 2002, 04:03:05 pm


If you can come up with a list of variables that you think are important but haven't been included yet, Matt and I will take a close look at them.


Please consider including job proximity.  Define the variable as all jobs within the given state's borders and within a reasonable commute outside them (50 miles).  This would take into account both job availability for incoming FSP members and a rough measure of the number of jobs that may easily relocate to take advantage of the FSP's business-friendly nature.


Yes, that is an important one, and Delaware especially does well on this count.  The only problem is, I'm not sure where these data would be available.  With a little work, we might be able to construct "population within 50 miles of state border" as a variable.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on October 29, 2002, 08:23:50 pm
irishinbaltimore

One word - AMEN!

Keep fighting the good fight!  I still don't know where anyone is going to work in ANY of the western states.  Access to a big city should be as important as the voting population.  I really don't know how so many people think Montana or ND are practicle at all.  Actually it kinda make me sad because to me these people seem like they have their heads in the clouds and are more concerned about a fantasy Libertarina Kingdom than the real task of making this project work.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: varrin on October 29, 2002, 08:34:47 pm

Access to a big city should be as important as the voting population.  


This is one of the reasons I have focused a bit on Idaho.  Employment in Boise should be a snap for FSPers.  It has lots of open space for those that want it, a big city (and several smaller ones) for those who want that (like me), and great diversity of geography and climate.  

I understand the arguments about population but I think job and climate issues are way more important to some people than we think....

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on October 30, 2002, 01:31:14 am

I'm at carefully examining our sorely thrashed Constitution, and taking from the 200 or so more years history we have now than our Founding Fathers had when it was originally drafted, and correcting its shortcomings. Separation of corporation & state, unlike religion & state, were strangely left out of that document for some odd reason...

This aspect needs correcting, along with prompt, lethal punnishment for any holding office who reinterpret, or in any way circumvent the Constitution... especially in times of crisis.


As much as I respect and admire our Founding Fathers, I do think that they engaged in some wishful thinking when they drafted the Constitution.  They were so anxious to achieve some sort of corporate union before the states could go their own way that they embraced a rather vague document, and the ambitious have been exploiting that weakness ever since in order to consolidate power.  

I agree that we need a means of addressing anyone who attempts to circumvent the Constitution's provisions, MB.  You and I have somewhat discussed a fourth, oversight "branch" of government before, and this may be a viable option, or at least a stop-gap measure.  Then we would need a major re-write to take place, and as much as that is needed, I don't think I'd want one to take place today.  Can you imagine Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, and Hillary Clinton sitting in the seats of Washington, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton?  That's as close to a secular form of sacrilege as anything I can think of!  Talk about darned if you do...

The free state seems our only viable option, and I think we'd best be quick about it.  Also, at the risk of having my head in the clouds here, I don't think that we'll ever get by with implementing this project near one of our major centers of east-coast socialism.  That would be like building a sheep pen in the middle of the lion's den.  This movement is going to be extremely fragile in the first few years, and we had best treat it as such or else face the very real chance of being completely marginalized and scorned.  I would not ask a fledgling libertarian movement, espousing ideas that have never been fully implemented in American history, to take on the Washington or New York socio-political centers for the same reason that I would not ask a novice hiker to climb Mt. Everest:  I have no interest in seeing him become a statistic.
Title: Re:Constitution
Post by: underwater on October 30, 2002, 02:19:41 am
Robert Hawes & MouseBorg,

I have always thought that the roles of congress and the executive branch are sort of mixed up. I think that the executive branch should formulate legislation and congress should have veto power. If domain experts in the whitehouse could formulate legislation then laws would probably be more logical and consistent. Furthermore, since these domain experts probably wouldn't be open to compromise, we could expect that most legislation would be vetoed. Thus, we would see an overall reduction in laws and a corresponding increase in quality. What do you think?
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on October 30, 2002, 02:54:45 am
I think No.  I think the executive branch is way too powerful now.  What is the purpose of have a legislature who's only purpose is to sign or veto.  Even if the executive branch was somthing I wasn't ashamed of do you really think the most effiecent way to admisister your job is to let you decide your responcibilities and how much pay you will get?  Well that's what you would be doing with this.  Basically what you are suggesting had been tried before with mixed sucess, it's called dictatorship and is probably not something we should strive for.  Puppet legilators are a dime a dozen.

Mouseborg I just want to remind you that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution (not that that is good or bad) just the state can't establish a religion or forbid one.
Mouseborg I wish I had time to read all of your posts you are perhaps the most intelligent coherent and logical person who has some of these anti-corporation type populist/Nader-esque views.  
The most striking point that made for me was when you questioned the existance and legitamacy of limited-liability.
Anyway I like to hear more from you.  As for the constitution If I was going to rewrite it, I'd say  that the presidancy is way too powerful and I'd like to replace the Senate with the way they do it in like Germany where Libertarians get 2% of the vote so they get 2% of the seats.  I forget what that's called.  
I agree with you that restrictions on corporations is anti-libertarian and I'm sure you realise that making an distiction between a "small" business and "large corporation" arbatrary and capricious.  I assume corporation couldn't run political ads and to me that a violation of free speech.  Either you decide what to do with your money or the government does and when I can't buy ad time because the government says so then to me that's a clear no-no.
-Eddie
Title: Re:Constitution
Post by: Robert H. on October 30, 2002, 04:02:57 am
Robert Hawes & MouseBorg,
I have always thought that the roles of congress and the executive branch are sort of mixed up. I think that the executive branch should formulate legislation and congress should have veto power. If domain experts in the whitehouse could formulate legislation then laws would probably be more logical and consistent. Furthermore, since these domain experts probably wouldn't be open to compromise, we could expect that most legislation would be vetoed. Thus, we would see an overall reduction in laws and a corresponding increase in quality. What do you think?

Welcome to the forum!

In response to your question, the Founders set up Congress as the legislative branch because they understood that government should not be particularly efficient in the speed with which it passed legislative acts.  Debate, check, and counter-check was necessary to halt the passage of imprudent laws.  We have two houses of Congress to check and balance one another now, and this forces compromise and adjustment.  There are ways of working around the system (political parties), but the system still works to some degree so that it is difficult for either party to really get away with everything it wants.

I would not think that the president should legislate (which he does now anyway via the unconstitutional "executive order").  It would place far too much power in the hands of one man, approximating dictatorship, as Eddie stated.  It wouldn't be absolute dictatorship by any means, but consider:  If Congress vetoed his actions, the president could simply refuse to submit anything else (or keep submitting the same unacceptable thing), letting the government run out of money unless his demands were met, etc.  This would amount to a legislative tyranny.  Look how Clinton used his veto power to put the government on the skids in 1995, and then blamed Congress for it.  The president has a bully pulpit and would, I think, make considerable use of it in this area to his decided advantage.  Congress, on the other hand, having many members, is not subject to the same overall risks.

To be honest with you, the branches I fear most are the judicial and executive, in that order.  The Judicial Branch is the most powerful of all because it gets to decide what it can and can't do, and what the other branches can and can't do via the judicial review process...a little unconstitutional creation of John Marshall's, which essentially placed a royal scepter into the hands of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is constitutionally limited to certain areas of jurisdiction, but has expanded its scope as to as to place everything under its jurisdication, making the federal government entirely supreme.


"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.  They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.  This will lay all things at their feet..."  - Thomas Jefferson

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Rearden on October 30, 2002, 10:37:21 am

Quote
author=irishinbaltimore
Joe and Mouseborg, this type of influence will come from every company, large and small, banking and mining, in the free state.  It is inevitable.


You make an excellent point here. However, I don't think we need invite the problem. This is also why I hold what seems to be a very anti-libertarian viewpoint where I favor large corporate restrictions, while allowing small business much more leeway... kinda the opposite of the current situation.

I'm at carefully examining our sorely thrashed Constitution, and taking from the 200 or so more years history we have now than our Founding Fathers had when it was originally drafted, and correcting its shortcomings. Separation of corporation & state, unlike religion & state, were strangely left out of that document for some odd reason...

This aspect needs correcting, along with prompt, lethal punnishment for any holding office who reinterpret, or in any way circumvent the Constitution... especially in times of crisis.


Mouseborg, I think you missed the main thrust of my earlier point.  You suggest that we should have what you admit are unlibertarian regulations against corporate influence in government.  My point is that regardless of regulations, special interests of all kinds, whether oriented by issue or by industry, will inevitably attempt to influence government officials.  You say we should not invite the problem.  I tell you we cannot avoid inviting it, whether the chosen free state is North Dakota or Delaware.  Like an obnoxious relative at Thanksgiving, it will show up anywhere.

The only thing these regulations do is create a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy.  Again, let me draw on my personal experience as an employee of the Maryland General Assembly.  I am required, on behalf of the delegate I work for, to submit regular lengthy campaign finance reports.  I must list every donation, where it came from, and where it went.  I must fill out forms for every baseball game ticket, every luncheon, every gallery opening, and every junket.  The result is not less influence, it is a mound of paperwork and a bureaucracy named the Ethics Commission created to deal with it.

Regulations cannot do it, they can only lull the people into complacency.  In the end, THE PEOPLE ELECTED REFLECT THE CITIZENS AT LARGE.  The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.  Democracy is hard; it requires participation.  If members of a state legislature are unduly influenced by special interests, it is because the citizens of that state are not paying attention.

In my humble opinion, Mouseborg, this is the flaw in your logic.  It is what makes your argument unlibertarian -- your solution to the problem of special interest influence is to supplant individual citizen responsibility with more inevitably ineffectual government.

Responding to your larger issue of Constitutional abuse, I agree for the most part.  It is routinely ignored, trampled, and twisted to suit various agendas.  However, it does not contain a separation of church and state.  The amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law..."  As explicated in Barron v. Baltimore, the first nine amendments were not intended to apply to states.  The Founding Fathers were not afraid of overreaching state governments; they were afraid of an overreaching federal government.  Therefore, despite the fact that the nine elderly lawyers of the big bench routinely ignore this except for the 2nd amendment, states are constitutionally entitled to regulate religion, speech, guns, search and seizures, and everything else in amendments 1 through 9.  

Having defended the constitutional right of states to regulate these freedoms, let me be quick to say that I don't think states should.  I think we'd agree on this.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: craft_6 on October 30, 2002, 10:46:29 am


Yes, that [job proximity] is an important one, and Delaware especially does well on this count.  The only problem is, I'm not sure where these data would be available.  With a little work, we might be able to construct "population within 50 miles of state border" as a variable.



A quick and dirty way to get data for job availability would be to go to http://www.monster.com, and search for jobs in the candidate states.  What really matters is not the number of employed people in a state, but the number of job openings.  Not all jobs are listed on monster.com of course, but if the percentage of jobs listed in each state is comparable, it would be a good indication.  The data could also be sorted further, to compare, say, the number of software job openings listed in each state.

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Rearden on October 30, 2002, 11:12:26 am


The free state seems our only viable option, and I think we'd best be quick about it.  Also, at the risk of having my head in the clouds here, I don't think that we'll ever get by with implementing this project near one of our major centers of east-coast socialism.  That would be like building a sheep pen in the middle of the lion's den.  This movement is going to be extremely fragile in the first few years, and we had best treat it as such or else face the very real chance of being completely marginalized and scorned.  I would not ask a fledgling libertarian movement, espousing ideas that have never been fully implemented in American history, to take on the Washington or New York socio-political centers for the same reason that I would not ask a novice hiker to climb Mt. Everest:  I have no interest in seeing him become a statistic.


I'm not saying that we should try to implement our ideas for the first time in New York City or Washington DC.  That would be "the lion's den."  However, I think we should pick a state that has a decent-sized city, like Wilmington or Manchester, as well as one that is close to the traditional major cities.  There are two reasons for this:

1.) As we implement our agenda, which will include tax reform and business deregulation (I hope), we could potentially lure and create thousands of new jobs quickly.  This will be much easier in Delaware or New Hampshire than out west.  Not to harp on this, but it would be much easier to convince corporations and residents to relocate from Philadelphia and Baltimore to Wilmington than to Cheyenne.  Jobs matter.  It could actually benefit us greatly to choose a state adjacent to the lion's den.  

2.) If we hope to convince America that our libertarian ideals will work, we have to show they will work in all environments.  The free state, in a very real sense, will be a laboratory.  That's why we it's important we pick a state that represents the diversity of America.  Suppose we picked Wyoming, and our ideas work.  "Great," people would say, "you've shown they work for rural ares, but it will never work in the cities."  If we picked, say, Delaware, which has a city of reasonable size (Wilmington), we could show on a small scale that our ideas would really work for all of America.

I'll move wherever I have to in order to be free, even Alaska, but until a state is chosen I'll argue vociferously for an east coast state with a variety of typologies, with the best chance of drawing businesses and citizens seeking liberty.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Michelle on October 30, 2002, 11:17:04 am
Quote
A quick and dirty way to get data for job availability would be to go to http://www.monster.com, and search for jobs in the candidate states.


I work in the career services field and heard a disturbing rumor recently that some of these job boards are intentionally recycling old ads or even posting bogus ones to inflate the numbers (more job announcements looks good to advertisers and keep traffic coming in). They are still a pretty good source for job searchers, but probably not the most reliable source if you are looking for data to use in analysis.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Rearden on October 30, 2002, 12:31:46 pm

Quote
author=irishinbaltimore
Suppose we picked Wyoming, and our ideas work.  "Great," people would say, "you've shown they work for rural ares, but it will never work in the cities."


Once we have a viable product which we can demonstrate works, why would we stop at a single state? I'm an American, and I want my entire country back, not just a small piece of it.

Having gained a solid poster child and foothold, there would be 49 other target states left. We would also have that initial experience under our belt, and have a much better understanding of our strengths as well as our shortcomings...


I agree with you 100%.  I was simply saying that a state with a city of over 100,000 would make a better case for the legitimacy of libertarian ideas than a homogenous state like those found in the big wide empty west.  It's the difference between proving we can restore freedom to rural areas and, as we both desire, proving that we can restore freedom to everywhere in the country, including our urban areas.  
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Rearden on October 30, 2002, 01:09:30 pm

Libertarian is simply the only organized political system that has so far made much sense to me. I appreciate any explanation of how it works, not only in theory, but in practice. So far, I haven't found a system that I fit properly into. I go with what makes sense to me, and hopefully, what will work in hands on practice. I remain quite teachable. :)

I have no problem changing my stand on an issue when I see a better method of dealing with it, yet at the same time, I'm not willing to accept a pig in a poke, and underwrite the entire libertarian school of thought without proper investigation.

In some ways, this is similar to the discussions taking place in other threads, one being the dumping of all taxes. I'm not in the least fond of taxes, but just how such is to work in a reasonably sane manner mystifies me, however I'm following those topics where they pop up, and hoping it will eventually make sense.



I can't pretend that I have all the answers and details.  Although I think I have a pretty good handle on the theoretical concepts, I'm still working through many practical applications of those principles.  For instance, it seems to me that state governments must have some source of income to perform their basic functions.  A small property tax will probably remain necessary, just as it was in the time of our country's founding.  However, many libertarians would disagree with that statement.  

This kind of civil discourse on the issues is exactly what will hopefully occur between interested citizens in the free state.  It is also, I think, exactly what is largely absent in America today.  Which leads me to my second point...

Quote
But I'm still left with the problem of, if most things are dependant on, for want of a better term, the will of the sheeple, sans any regulation, then we are right back to square one. We've just watched a variation of this method not work, and are likely to see much more serious example of this, as the current state of affairs does appear progressive.

My main issue here is, how do we prevent ourselves from ending up right back where we are now in a while, without instituting safeguards to do so (similar, yet more extensive, than what were contained in the Constitution)? To have ones liberty hinging on a complacent, uninformed, dumbed down mass seems um... illogical.


I have to agree; to have ones liberty hinging on the masses seems illogical.  It is, sadly, the only thing to hinge it upon.  Even a sacred document like the Constitution, meant to inspire and shore up those dumb masses (good word -- sheeple) can obviously be ignored, as John Ashcroft has shown.  

It is one of history's cruel lessons that all democratic republics crumble due to citizen indifference.  Within fifty years of Pericles' oration praising Athen's open society and civic culture it was a dictatorship, as citizens seeking security gave up their freedoms.  They literally ran joyfully to their chains.  Rome mutated from a republic into an empire led by emperors, because the senate delegated its powers. Hitler was democratically elected, only to be designated Chancellor by the Reichstag.  The trend even holds in fiction -- the much-missed Republic in Star Wars is not overthrown by the Empire, it becomes the Empire when a manipulated Senate delegates its powers to the Emperor.  

In my more cynical times I worry that my beloved country has already gone too far down the path to empire.  Not to be melodramatic, but I honestly feel that we must succeed in our endeavor -- the alternative is a country no one could be proud of.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on October 30, 2002, 01:53:08 pm
I'm not saying that we should try to implement our ideas for the first time in New York City or Washington DC.  That would be "the lion's den."  However, I think we should pick a state that has a decent-sized city, like Wilmington or Manchester, as well as one that is close to the traditional major cities.  There are two reasons for this:

Cheyenne is a city of 81,000 people in close proximity to the Denver, Boulder, Colorado area.  Billings, MT is a city of 89,000.  Boise, ID has 185,000.  Fargo, ND has 90,000.  Sioux Falls, SD has 123,000.  Anchorage, AK has 260,000.  These are not small towns; they are major population centers.  As for being near the "traditional" major cities, and since you favor the east coast I would assume you mean New York, Washington, etc..., this, I believe, is inviting government scrutiny and interference on a level that we would probably not see elsewhere.  Thus, I believe that it also constitutes a greater threat to our overall chances of success.

If the free state succeeds, we will be creating a state with reduced scrutiny of its population, and greater freedom of movement and commerce in general.  Given the federal government's enhanced security and scrutiny measures due to the terrorist threats to New York and Washington, I seriously doubt that they are going to stand by and allow such a state to be formed in close proximity to those areas they view as being at greatest risk.  They would likely find whatever excuse they needed to interfere with us on that basis, and I think they would create enough hysteria in the general population of those areas to effectively marginalize us.

Quote
1.) As we implement our agenda, which will include tax reform and business deregulation (I hope), we could potentially lure and create thousands of new jobs quickly.  This will be much easier in Delaware or New Hampshire than out west.  Not to harp on this, but it would be much easier to convince corporations and residents to relocate from Philadelphia and Baltimore to Wilmington than to Cheyenne.  Jobs matter.  It could actually benefit us greatly to choose a state adjacent to the lion's den.  

Why could we not just as easily lure recruits from cities out west?  People could come from Denver, Las Vegas, Boise, Seattle, etc.  Besides, as far as relocating corporations is concerned, they generally tend to go to areas where land and labor is cheaper, and this is indisputibly an advantage for the western states.  Some areas out west with poorer economies would also be far more excited about any opportunities that we could bring their way, and this could go a long way toward mitigating resistance to us based on an "outsider" or "carpetbagger" image.  We would have the potential to offer those sorts of individuals far more in the way of opportunity than we could offer to the comparatively wealthy eastern states.

Quote
2.) If we hope to convince America that our libertarian ideals will work, we have to show they will work in all environments.  The free state, in a very real sense, will be a laboratory.  That's why we it's important we pick a state that represents the diversity of America.  Suppose we picked Wyoming, and our ideas work.  "Great," people would say, "you've shown they work for rural ares, but it will never work in the cities."  If we picked, say, Delaware, which has a city of reasonable size (Wilmington), we could show on a small scale that our ideas would really work for all of America.

If the logic behind this is to show that our ideals can work anywhere, then what is to stop someone from saying:  "What's Wilmington in comparison to New York or Philadelphia?  You've shown your ideas can work for a small city, but it will never work in the big cities."  Using this approach, with this sort of supporting logic, you might as well just aim for the top right from the start.

You are absolutely correct in saying that the free state will be a laboratory of sorts, but I would have to point out that laboratory experiments are fragile things, and are conducted with numerous controls.  The more variables that you introduce into the lab environment, the more risk you take that your experiment will go awry.

The FSP will be attempting to sell a libertarian agenda to a population on a scale never before attempted in American history.  We are going to be the subjects of intense scrutiny and opposition from every different source imaginable, including many who should rightly support us.  If we locate ourselves nearest to the seats of political and media power, we are inviting interference on a level that could seriously jeopardize the entire movement.  Politicians and self-appointed guardians of "the people" will assail us with everything they have in their arsenals, stirring up fear of our "radical, untested" agenda, and warning anyone who will listen that we intend to take their government security blankets from them, expose their children to an assortment of "threats," and throw society into chaos in general.

The larger the city, the greater its population of those dependent upon the very government programs we intend to target for reduction.  One example of the reception that we would likely find ourselves in for would be the social security debate.  Any time that any sort of reform whatsoever is up for debate, the political fear-mongers turn up the heat to such a fever's pitch that DC politicians are frightened of even raising the issue at all.  With the FSP, such groups will realize that freedom finally stands a chance of stopping their statist agenda, and they will attack it for all their worth.  Logic and reason will be of no more avail against leftists and statists than they are right now.  They will respond with the same fear-mongering tactics that have served them so well in the past, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that the populations that have so readily swallowed those lies thus far will simply refuse to buy them again because a few high-minded idealists show up in town with newfangled political theories.

I don't say these things to be negative, but just to point out that the FSP is a movement that can only succeed by working it's way up gradually, taking one small bite at a time and digesting each one thoroughly.  No matter where we go, people are going to want to see proof that our ideas can work, and the more people we deal with, the harder it will be to make that case.  For this reason, I believe that we must necessarily start out in small places where we can get hold of the system more easily and begin to implement reforms with less political, power-backed resistance.

The ultimate fact that we must consider is that if we are unable to get hold of the system, we will be unable to do anything at all.  The bigger the system, the longer and harder it will be to get hold of it, the longer and harder it will be to change it.  People are not just going to drop their statist thinking and their government dependencies and flock to us overnight.  

Quote
I'll move wherever I have to in order to be free, even Alaska, but until a state is chosen I'll argue vociferously for an east coast state with a variety of typologies, with the best chance of drawing businesses and citizens seeking liberty.

There's no guarantee that this will happen anywhere that we go.  Again, our ideas will be untried and decried as "radical."  Many people, including some conservatives and libertarians, will distance themselves from us just to keep from being drawn into controversy and connected with "those extremists."  

And there are certain businesses that like control, by the way, because, in many larger cities, it's the businesses that do the controlling.  Businesses support politicians, and politicians do what businesses want.  If we come in offering a chance for more opportunities for the little guy to compete with the big guy, we threaten the big guy's profits, and he in turn can turn up the political heat on us to make certain that our reforms don't get off the ground.

Would it be wonderful if we could gain control of a larger city like Wilmington?  Sure it would.  It would definitely give us a great showcase.  But with greater prizes come the harder races.  We cannot afford to become so enamored by the potentially wonderful gains that we fail to see the potentially lethal risks.  Before we can showcase our success, we must first succeed.

Sorry to be so long here, but your comments were thoughtful and I wanted to provide a thoughtful response.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on October 30, 2002, 06:31:00 pm
Mouseborg, I think we should investigate WHY you think there should be a separation of corporation and state.  I believe it is because corportations corrupt politics with money.  Why?  Because the government can issue regulations that will benifit the corporation.  If kill most to all government there would be no incentive to pay off politicians.  Likewise if we reduce the budget to a very low level there would be much less bribing by contrators to get government contracts.

I don't know what to do about Shepple.  All I can say is that Freedom is a never ending war.  And it's a damn hard one.  We must have these conversations with people we must care about the Sheeple and hope that someday they will care about Freedom too.  We must fight the good fight my friend for everyone's sake.  I will say one thing though I think from historical examples the system that most often alows a relatively free society to flourish is when most government power located locally.  Like in the golden age of Greek city states before Athens became an imperial power or the earlier days of the Roman Republic or the early days of the U.S.  So hopfully if we can make a stand with this project then we can help influence  more and more people.  Here's an example of me trying to get through to the sheeple.
I went to lunch with some guys from work and my coworker said "You know what would get rid of the drug problem once and for all? If you get caught smoking pot the you go to jail for the rest of your life!"
We only talked about that briefly but in another conversation it came up again and I said "So in the 30's you would have wanted to put people away for the rest of their life for drinking Alchohol?"  Oh course he didn't think so and by the end of the conversation I got them to realise that the distinction was an arbatrary one between alchohol and other drugs.  I didn't change their mind but I did get them to realise that there is no hard difference between the two just a judgement call about what is acceptable.
-Eddie
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on October 31, 2002, 12:27:34 am
author=Robert Hawes
You and I have somewhat discussed a fourth, oversight "branch" of government before, and this may be a viable option, or at least a stop-gap measure.


We would first have to evict the current pretender to the throne of that fourth branch - the media. ;)

That might be an interesting thread to start over on the strategy boards.  How do we move in on the media and take their spotlight away from them?  Start our own newspapers?  Have our own radio station?  There are quite a few good, realistic possibilities to ponder, and we should probably get something in place if plan on getting our message out without the media filters.

Quote
Quote:
Can you imagine Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, and Hillary Clinton sitting in the seats of Washington, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton?
 
OUCH! I was laughing so hard on that one it seriously hurt. Not a pretty picture by any stretch.

Not pretty at all!  And of course, political correctness would require that we swap the Founding Fathers for the "Founding Persons."  Our Constitution would probably come out about the size of a New York City phone book as well.  ;D

Quote
Also, at the risk of having my head in the clouds here, I don't think that we'll ever get by with implementing this project near one of our major centers of east-coast socialism.

Agreed... Our initial prospect should ideally be selected as offering the highest odds of success. We'll no doubt have our hands more than full already, without trying to tackle interesting or challenging prospects, even though some may offer some nice upsides if gained.

Very true.  I responded to a post on that sort of thing somewhere up above, and probably ran on longer than I should have, but I think the issue is critical to our success.  There's no reason why we couldn't expand outward from a smaller area once we've gotten access to the system and showed that our ideas can work.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Rearden on October 31, 2002, 12:57:51 am
MouseBorg and Robert, I am becoming increasingly convinced that Delaware is the most logical state for us.  I know most FSPers will disagree, but you can't blame me for lobbying!  Anyway, we've gotten a little off topic on this thread, and rather than simply giving my reasons one at a time I think the thing to do is create a state report making my case and ask Jason to post it.  

In the meantime, FSPer George Wilson of NJ wrote to the yahoo list what I think is a very good essay explaining why a small state is our best choice.  I'm attaching it here.  See you elsewhere on the forum.

Good evening all,

I have been reading with great interest the various discussions regarding which state we should choose for our project.  The discussions generally seem to focus on three factors, economy, climate, and overall population. I am not certain though that these discussions are focusing on the aspects necessary for our liberation of a state.

Our primary goal, as I understand it, is to liberate a state by achieving a majority in the state's legislature, and having our candidate elected as governor. This will allow us to repeal those state laws repugnant to freedom and liberty, and restore the proper relationship between the State and the Federal Government. In order to accomplish these goals, we need to select not only the state in which we have the best chance of securing the legislature, but we also need to select a state in which 20,000+ Porcupines can live and support themselves and their families while we work towards our goals.

Most of the recent economic discussions have focused on the ability of the Porcupines to invigorate the state's economy and the inevitable economic boom that will follow our success. Unfortunately few have discussed the implications of 20,000 of us moving into an economically disadvantaged state. Most seem to feel that we will be able to move into any state, regardless of its economic climate, establish new businesses, and be successful. I do not question the ability of my fellow Porcupines to establish new businesses and be self-reliant, but I do question whether that is in the best interest of our mission.

As my fellow business owners are aware, starting one's own business requires two things, a lot of time and a lot of money. While the average employee works a 37.5 or 40 hour week, it is not unusual for an entrepreneur to work 60, 70, or even 80 hours per week. It is also not unusual for a new business to take several years before it is truly profitable.  Unfortunately, if we are busy building businesses and working long hours to provide for our families, we will have less time and money to dedicate to freeing the state.

Make no mistake, both can be done at the same time, but doing both simultaneously will require large commitments of time, energy, and money. It will be extraordinarily difficult for us to succeed if too many of us are struggling to do both. The economic boom that so many have spoken about will surely come, but not until after we are successful and have made it an economically free state. The boom is not going to come while we are struggling to secure the legislature and governorship.

I think it would be wise for us to look to states which already possess strong economies, and have a large enough population and economic base to absorb 20,000 new workers in a short period of time. A state like Wyoming, where we would represent about 4% of its population (not counting our children), is not going to be able to absorb that many new workers fast enough. A state like North Dakota is simply too weak economically to support us. We need to focus on states in which we can readily move 20,000 people and their families and have all of them be able to support themselves. We cannot win this fight if our minds are always wondering how we are to pay the bills, instead of focusing on the State House.

I believe we should also be very wary of looking at states that are heavily reliant on Federal dollars and government jobs. Those states, and their citizens, which have become accustomed to receiving Federal handouts will be harder to win than states which are not in the habit of taking Federal monies. There may be portions of their citizenry who are sympathetic to our goals, but it will be very difficult to win much popular support by telling them we are planning to kill their cash cow. We will have enough trouble making this project work without making things more complicated for ourselves.

The discussions about climate are rather pointless. We each have our own preferences but we are going to have to accept the fact that our best chances lie in northern states, with the exception of Delaware. No southern state offers us a good opportunity for success.

The discussions about population seem to worry more about the overall population of the state, which for our purposes really isn't that critical. We are not going to be pursuing seats in the Congress initially, nor should we. The congressional seats will do little to help our cause. We are trying to reassert the right's of the States and their citizens to be free of Federal interference. The South tried that with many more Senators and Congressmen than we would possess and they were ignored. Aside from having a voice in the chambers (drowned out by the two parties rhetoric) and being able to keep a more watchful eye on their actions, our possessing votes in the Congress will not secure us one bit of freedom.

More critical to us are the states' legislatures, more particularly the number of seats in each house, and the voting populations within those districts. There are vast differences between the total number of seats in the states' legislatures, ranging from Alaska and Delaware's 60 and 62, to New Hampshire's 412. Clearly the more voting districts a state possesses, the more spread out our efforts will have to be in order to gain a majority.

In the 2000 elections in Delaware for example, which had a very high turnout of 65%, the number of votes cast in the districts for Delaware's House averaged only 7,010 with only a handful drawing more than 9,000 voters, the highest being 14,038. The votes cast in its Senate districts averaged 14,731, with only two being higher than 16,000 votes. In 1998, an off year election, the numbers were even more favorable to us. The House districts averaged 3,827, with a high of 8,564, while the Senate averaged 7,432, with a high of 12,154 votes.

If we had run 40 good campaigns in either year, with 500 Porcupines supporting and working for each, we would have had an excellent chance of winning the legislature. In New Hampshire we would need to run well over 200 campaigns simultaneously, which would tax our resources much more heavily.

Another consideration regarding the running of campaigns is the size of the states themselves. In a small state such as Delaware or New Hampshire, we would be near each other and it would be very easy for us to work together and support each other, much more so than if we were say spread across Montana. A rally for a candidate in which several thousand Porcupines, plus others, showed up would impress undecided voters and the media much more than one in which we could muster only a few hundred people.

I realize that there is a certain allure to many of us, myself included, in being able to live where you can't see your nearest neighbor's house. If we choose a small state that will be much more difficult, but as with climate, I think that it is something we need to look beyond if we are going to succeed. Once we are successful in one state I am sure that we will "colonize" others in which that would be possible.

Getting one of our's elected governor should not be that difficult regardless of the overall population once we are successful in building a strong block of districts in the legislature. If we select a state that tends to vote republican to begin with, so much the better. We should have a very good chance of winning a three way race.

There have also been reservations expressed about moving to one of the states on the eastern seaboard due to their proximity to New York City and Washington, D.C., the perception being that would we be more ill perceived by the Feds if we were near the sites attacked on September 11, 2001. I believe that this concern is unwarranted. We will be under close scrutiny by the Federal Government no matter where we go. They will be concerned about our threat to their control.

We cannot achieve our goals by operating in secret anyway. We must operate freely, out in the open, for all the world to see. The Feds will have little trouble keeping an eye on us, and if they want to remove us they will, whether we are in New Hampshire, or Montana, or Alaska. They will not need to label us terrorists to justify their actions. Look at the wide variety of excuses the Clinton administration used to silence their "problems." We cannot concern ourselves with this risk any more than the signers of the Declaration of Independence did.

We have an opportunity to secure freedom and liberty for ourselves and our posterity, but only if we are careful in our choice of states. We will not get a second chance, and the window of opportunity for this sort of action is rapidly closing. We must choose well, and we must choose the state which offers the best chance of success. If we place extra burdens upon ourselves by choosing poorly, we may indeed fail despite our best efforts.

George Wilson
Boonton, NJ
--
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on October 31, 2002, 01:51:43 am

MouseBorg and Robert, I am becoming increasingly convinced that Delaware is the most logical state for us.  I know most FSPers will disagree, but you can't blame me for lobbying!  Anyway, we've gotten a little off topic on this thread, and rather than simply giving my reasons one at a time I think the thing to do is create a state report making my case and ask Jason to post it.


Definitely can't blame you for lobbying.  We're all lobbyists for ourselves to some extent.   ;D  And, yes, I do think they are looking for more state reports as well.

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on October 31, 2002, 05:28:33 am
I saw George's post on the Yahoo list and there have been a couple of good responses to it.  I understand the points that he is making and why, but I also think that he generally discounts some factors that will be crucial to our success.

Quote
The discussions about population seem to worry more about the overall population of the state, which for our purposes really isn't that critical. We are not going to be pursuing seats in the Congress initially, nor should we. The congressional seats will do little to help our cause. We are trying to reassert the right's of the States and their citizens to be free of Federal interference.

I agree with George that we should not be initially involved in pursuing Congressional seats; however, I would also say that, Congressional seats aside, population is an absolutely crucial consideration for us, particularly voting population.

The bottom line is this:  We will never have to worry about Congressional seats if we can't exert our influence over state government, and we will never exert our influence over state government if we cannot gain control of local government.  If we cannot succeed at the local level, then every other FSP goal is purely an academic consideration.  We will go nowhere.  Local control is absolutely essential to the success of this movement, and this requires that we start off small and in an incremental fashion against as little opposition as possible.  Confidence is wonderful, but overconfidence can be fatal.

We're not going to be able to just walk into Wilmington (a city of 500,000) with our 20,000 and say:  "Okay, now it's our turn."  We're going to be taking on entrenched statist infrastructure, and our chances of success in such an environment are probably about as good as Pickett's were in charging up Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg.  We'd be headed into the teeth of the thickest type of fire the enemy can throw at us.  Lee was brilliant, but I'm with Longstreet here:  I'd much rather flank them than charge straight into them.

Again, I have to ask the question:  Can we can really expect the masses who have swallowed statist rhetoric so readily in the past to just turn a deaf ear to it when we show up proposing untested ideas that will result in their government checks and benefits disappearing?  Will we suddenly be able to succeed with reason and logic against the emotional tactics of the Left where so many have failed before us, particularly in areas where the Left has the strongest constituency?  How will we demonstrate the worthiness of our ideas when we can't get them off the ground because we're trying to shoulder too large a burden?  What we will do when the big businesses who control so many politicians in large cities turn up the heat on us because we plan on creating more opportunities for the little guy to compete with them and dwindle their profits?  What will we say to the conservative and libertarian elites who, instead of supporting us, turn their backs on us because they don't want their hard-won careers destroyed by being associated with "extremists."

When you started off learning how to drive, did you start off with a dump truck or other large vehicle?  Probably not.  You probably started with something small and simple because you did not yet have the skills to handle some larger.  The FSP is just beginning to gel in terms of the membership numbers that it needs to launch this project, but as of yet, until we choose a state, we cannot even accurately plan for how we'll implement our ideas, use our numbers to maximum advantage, deal with suspicious locals, etc.  Not having driven yet in terms of political activism, are we really ready to climb into the cab of a semi because it's a big, powerful, impressive vehicle, and it would really amaze others if we could drive it?

If you bite off more than you can chew, don't be surprised if you choke.  If the FSP takes on a high population area, don't be surprised at all if it is overwhelmed, marginalized, and discredited.  I'm not trying to sound defeatist here, just pointing out that a fledgling movement like ours cannot afford to strain its new wings too hard right out of the nest.  Leftists are very, very good at what they do, and if we go up against them, I'd rather they not have home field advantage and control of the ball from the start.  I'd rather win a few games against smaller competition first, and then go up against the big guys once we prove that we can plan together as a team and follow a game plan.

Quote
There have also been reservations expressed about moving to one of the states on the eastern seaboard due to their proximity to New York City and Washington, D.C., the perception being that would we be more ill perceived by the Feds if we were near the sites attacked on September 11, 2001. I believe that this concern is unwarranted. We will be under close scrutiny by the Federal Government no matter where we go. They will be concerned about our threat to their control.


This concern is more than warranted.  Our federal government is absolutely determined to batten down every open hatch there is on this ship, and they are not going to look favorably on our coming along and re-opening them.  They are determined to enact tighter controls on high population areas, port access, and border crossings.  If we come along insisting on setting up a state with fewer controls in such areas, we are going to run headlong into the Homeland Defense agenda, which will be backed by politicians whose constituents are afraid of another 9/11 or don't want their children getting weed from Canada, etc...

Yes, the government will watch us wherever we go, but let me ask this question:  If you're worried that someone could potentially cause you harm or diminish your influence in some way, are you going to be more worried about them if they are 3,000 miles away, or if they are setting up a tent in your backyard?  If we locate ourselves in an area where we do not immediately threaten the federal government's homeland security concerns and statist controls, they will have fewer reasons to interfere with us because we won't threaten their power or agenda nearly as much.  But if we place ourselves in an environment where they can whip up fear among the masses, where they have legitimate constitutional authority to act (borders, ports...think the Commerce Clause and Homeland Defense here), and where the mass media and big-whig leftist politicians can best assist them, we are courting trouble and asking to get stepped on.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: RidleyReport on November 02, 2002, 12:08:53 pm
<<Some areas out west with poorer economies would also be far more excited about any opportunities that we could bring their way>>

Bingo.  The same might apply to Northern Maine.

I really wish there were more talk like this about what the people in the target states want.  We need to be as senstitive to that as we can without compromising our principles.
Title: Re:Election 2002 and Taxes in NH
Post by: mdw on November 05, 2002, 10:14:14 pm
All-

Well, election day has come and just about gone. The preliminary results are in for New Hampshire. According to the front page of http://www.politicsnh.com/ Craig Benson, the Republican candidate for governor, has won the election. Also, the Reps. are making a strong showing across the board. About 60% of the districts have reported, and most are overwhelmingly Republican. The Libertarians had a decent showing in the governor race as well (2%). Arguably, many libertarian-oriented individuals voted Republican due to the contentious tax issues.

What these election results indicate? Well, NH has elected a governor who is for fiscal responsibility and will oppose any new taxes. The overall voter turnout and actual vote counts remain to be analyzed in terms of the FSP criteria.

Regards,
mdw
 
Title: Seems to me it's kind of obvious which state should be picked.
Post by: EricTheBald on January 02, 2003, 02:14:16 pm
You know that section of the site where the candidate states are listed with their order of ranking in terms of desireability?

Well, last week I drew up this chart thing to see how many times a state showed up in 1st, 2nd or 3rd place.

New Hampshire was in 1st, 2nd or 3rd place ten times.
If I recall correctly it was also in 1st place the most.

The next candidate only hit the 1,2,3 spot 5 times.
I think there were two of them, then a bunch of "4-timers" and the rest were less than 4.

PLUS, NH is between Vt & Maine, two other candidate states.

No other state has that many things going for it at the same time.
Title: Re:Seems to me it's kind of obvious which state should be picked.
Post by: TedApelt on January 02, 2003, 05:29:16 pm
This is a good way to go about state anaylsis, but could you be a little more specific?  What "chart thing", how many different times, what did you do each time?

What states hit the 1,2,3 spot 5 times?
Title: Re:Seems to me it's kind of obvious which state should be picked.
Post by: Zxcv on January 02, 2003, 06:42:44 pm
Eric, almost everybody agrees the state is obvious. They just don't happen to choose the same state.  :D

Let's see your list of criteria...
Title: Re:Seems to me it's kind of obvious which state should be picked.
Post by: thewaka on January 02, 2003, 07:30:16 pm
Ericthebald,

I decided to do something like you did, only I took it a bit further. I listed each state's ranking from each criteria, then added them all together. The lower the number, possibly the better the state. NH had the lowest score. WY was second. ME and MT last.

What you seem to be missing is that these are not all equal. Well, maybe they are to you. They aren't to many of us and I believe there are things left out of those criteria that are important. So this is interesting, but not particularly enlightening to me. Certainly doesn't determine how I'll rank the states. I still think NH's population is too big, among other things.

Diana
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: DadELK68 on February 05, 2003, 12:01:31 pm
As a relative newcomer to FSP I was just reviewing some old posts, and wanted to respond to concerns about lack of opportunities for isolation in NH.

I grew up in the West (ID, with family in every state west of the Continental Divide), and for almost the last decade have been living in NH. I love both, but think NH is best for the long-term success of the FSP, for many reasons. One difference to consider is that out West if you want to be secluded you have to own 20+ acres, and even at that you can still see your neighbors.

Eventually I want a larger plot (and more seclusion), but right now we live in a house about 2 miles from 'downtown' Derry NH, on less than three acres in a cul-de-sac with five other houses within ~100 yards - and the only neighbor we can see from our house is the house directly across the street, partially visible through the trees. The land out here is so heavily wooded that you can have greater relative seclusion on much smaller plots of land than you can get just about anywhere in the West.

Just thought you might like to know...

Eric
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on February 05, 2003, 12:16:16 pm
The LPNH Welcome to the Granite State Committee needs your help in welcoming the Free State Project to NH!

If you are a New Hampshire resident, and support the Free State Project, please add your information to our LPNH-FSP networking database:

http://www.lpnh.org/lpnh-fsp-db.htm

Thanks so much! :)
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Kelton on February 05, 2003, 01:47:12 pm
One difference to consider is that out West if you want to be secluded you have to own 20+ acres, and even at that you can still see your neighbors. . .

The land out here is so heavily wooded that you can have greater relative seclusion on much smaller plots of land than you can get just about anywhere in the West.


Being one who actually enjoys living in a large city, I do not really understand this need for such seclusion. . .(personal example follows) I live in an apartment with tinting film and shades on the windows, several large trees and a pond with a water fountain just out the door that masks noise; but other than that, we enjoy sharing a common tree-shaded area with our neighbors from Alberta on the left, a Hispanic family on the right, An Armenian family across the way, and a girl from Tokyo across the other way.  Just last night, our family took advantage of the warm weather and had a pot-painting party on the front porch (terra cotta pots, that is)  before long, it turned into a spontaneous neighborhood party that turned- out very pleasant.  I guess its just what you make of it.  I grew up living out in a remote area where you could see ALL of the stars at night, not just the bright ones, and though I appreciate the experiences I had living out in a secluded town, I much prefer living in the city now.

The New England area is certainly more wooded than out west, especially with deciduous trees,  but the landscape is more varied out west: in Idaho alone, you could live on the side of a heavily- forested mountain, in a low and temperate valley, near farmlands, near a rather large metropolitan area, in a remote high and barren desert or even a lower cactus-strewn desert, or you could chose to live by the side of a lake, or fishing stream, or even near high mountains where the snow doesn't melt until summer!

Don't get me wrong though, New Hampshire is either my second or third choice among the states, depending on whether I am hating or loving Wyoming that day. :-\
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: DadELK68 on February 05, 2003, 02:43:18 pm
Being one who actually enjoys living in a large city, I do not really understand this need for such seclusion. .

The New England area is certainly more wooded than out west, especially with deciduous trees,  but the landscape is more varied out west: in Idaho alone, you could live on the side of a heavily- forested mountain, in a low and temperate valley, near farmlands, near a rather large metropolitan area, in a remote high and barren desert or even a lower cactus-strewn desert, or you could chose to live by the side of a lake, or fishing stream, or even near high mountains where the snow doesn't melt until summer!

Don't get me wrong though, New Hampshire is either my second or third choice among the states, depending on whether I am hating or loving Wyoming that day. :-\

Don't get me wrong either - I dream of moving back to Idaho and buying a ranch up in the Stanley Basin (I have a postcard of Redfish Lake at sunset on my desk), although when my wife and I went there on our honeymoon and she saw the sign which said 'Welcome to Stanley, Pop. 72', she nixed that dream quickly. I prefer the climate out there as well - the Normal Rockwellian picture I painted left out the hours of shoveling snow, the humidity and biting insects, etc.

However, with the options you describe in Idaho (and similarly through most of the Western states), in most populated areas the tradeoff is either living in plain view of neighbors (sometimes for miles around) or living many miles from the nearest schools, grocery stores, etc.

Finally, if you look at what 20,000 people (with families) will need to make the FSP successful, I think NH has the best balance of access to both seclusion (relative, if not absolute) and rural/suburban/urban/cosmopolitan areas. If we were talking about 1,000 people I would talk up Idaho in almost every regard and jump at the chance to move back - but for the purposes of the FSP, I sincerely think NH is the strongest candidate for success.

Eric
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: freedomroad on February 05, 2003, 10:37:23 pm
The New England area is certainly more wooded than out west, especially with deciduous trees,  but the landscape is more varied out west: in Idaho alone, you could live on the side of a heavily- forested mountain, in a low and temperate valley, near farmlands, near a rather large metropolitan area, in a remote high and barren desert or even a lower cactus-strewn desert, or you could chose to live by the side of a lake, or fishing stream, or even near high mountains where the snow doesn't melt until summer!

Wyoming is not quite is varied as ID (very few states are).  However, Wyoming does have a heavily-forested mountain, farmland, sagebrush, desert, tons of fishing streams and rivers, a great deal of lakes, mountains that seem to have snow forever, Evanston which is 1 hour from the Salt Lake City MSA (expected to have 2 million people by 2025), Ft. Collins 50 min. away and Denver a couple hours away.  A great deal of ski resorts, snow ski land, amazing hunting land, the Cheyenne area with around 88,000 people in the MSA and 150,000 in the extended MSA, little regulation, and few low taxes.

IMHO, some of the best arguements against NH are: The lower 30% of the state is very crowded while the upper 70% is very cold and the entire state gets lots of snow, NH is not a right-to-work state, NH has a growing green and liberal population that is flexing its muscle, and a large and quickly growing population (compared to the other FSP states).
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: DadELK68 on February 06, 2003, 05:37:04 pm

IMHO, some of the best arguements against NH are: The lower 30% of the state is very crowded while the upper 70% is very cold and the entire state gets lots of snow, NH is not a right-to-work state, NH has a growing green and liberal population that is flexing its muscle, and a large and quickly growing population (compared to the other FSP states).

In order:

1) 'Very crowded' is largely relative and based on perception (see my post above about not being able to see our neighbor's houses),
2) right-to-work legislation was just re-introduced and has excellent chance of passage in the newly elected legislature,
3) the snow and cold weather is one thing shared to one degree or another by all of the northern states (and may be one of the factors which will be keeping 'statists' from moving in quite so easily), and the heavy woods do a great deal to block freezing winds (unlike the high plains and valleys of the West, where it's more important to look at wind chill than just referring to temperature),
4) the last election results go against the contention that the liberal/green population is growing and/or flexing much of anything (when voter participation is at its highest, it's a sweep for the anti-tax agenda), and
5) the majority of those I meet who are moving here are doing so because they want to 'Live Free or Die'.

In NH the 'crowded' southern tier is actually handling the population growth pretty darn well - I live in the area with some of the most rapid growth, and because of the forestation even with all of the construction to handle the influx it's difficult to see the impact (other than the gradually worsening freeway traffic and need for more schools). The population is spread with varying density across a wide range of small cities and towns, with no one area simply being overwhelmed.

When you talk about the growth in Southern NH, realize that most of it is spread from Portsmouth on the coast almost to Peterborough, a region of rolling hills, ponds and dense woodlands something like 70 by 30 miles. This is possible because there are three major freeways cutting through this band with access to the Boston Metro area, two of which also have easy access to greater Manchester and Concord.

In WY, on the other hand, note that most of the population centers fit my description, even more than in Idaho - in the valleys and high plains, so that if you need to live anywhere near town (to make a living) you have to own a great deal more land in order to have any privacy. This is hardly an option for most people - both because it requires more money up-front and because the populated areas of the West (including WY) are more densely populated locally. Furthermore, this is usually in the pattern of 'suburban sprawl' in large small-lot subdivisions so that larger plots within reasonable distance of a population center are almost impossible to find (unless you buy a farm), with vast sparsely-populate areas between the cities and towns (much of which is owned by the federal government, with some large spreads as private range).

So, when it comes to issues like privacy, population density and quality-of-life, let's look at the whole picture. On these variables I would pick ID first and NH second, while for the greatest success of the FSP it seems clear that NH is first and ID second.

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Zxcv on February 06, 2003, 09:47:07 pm
Dad, you apparently discount population wildly, which means you have rather a optimistic opinion on the number of people we can recruit.

ID and NH should both be eliminated from consideration, as well as ME, because they would all be inferior to a 2-state project (e.g. WY/VT or WY/DE), which we have eliminated from consideration. I'm sorry to say that because if population were unimportant, ID would be my first choice by far.

Quote
we live in a house about 2 miles from 'downtown' Derry NH, on less than three acres in a cul-de-sac with five other houses within ~100 yards - and the only neighbor we can see from our house is the house directly across the street, partially visible through the trees.

Yeah, but how can you set up a rifle range on 3 acres?  :P

This little issue of privacy is a strange point to be emphasizing, isn't it? Most FSPers will be living in cities or towns, after all. I agree, a home on 3 acres of flat grassland is pretty silly, but there is enough variety in most of the states that we don't have to do that sort of thing, for the minority of us who will be living in the country. And there is plenty of privacy on 20 acres - just plant a couple of bushes!  ;)

NH has a lot going for it (probably already one of the two freest states in the country), so you don't have to go on about this minor concern of privacy. Instead, how about trying to convince us that population doesn't matter? That's what's going to be the killer argument against NH (and ID), and if you can't answer that argument, well...  ::)
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: freedomroad on February 06, 2003, 10:10:52 pm
Quote
In order:

1) 'Very crowded' is largely relative and based on perception (see my post above about not being able to see our neighbor's houses),
2) right-to-work legislation was just re-introduced and has excellent chance of passage in the newly elected legislature,

This is very good news.  I really find it hard to understand how a state that claims to be conservative is not a right-to-work state (AK is also like this).  That makes the state anti-bus. and it almost seems evil, IMHO.  

Quote
3) the snow and cold weather is one thing shared to one degree or another by all of the northern states (and may be one of the factors which will be keeping 'statists' from moving in quite so easily), and the heavy woods do a great deal to block freezing winds (unlike the high plains and valleys of the West, where it's more important to look at wind chill than just referring to temperature),

Many parts of ID, MT, and WY do have lots of trees and even forests.  I agree that wind speed is an issue and so I did a report on this.
ID, MT, and WY all have non-windy (not more than average) cities such as Boise, ID, Missoula and Bozeman, MT, and Sheridan, Green River, and Riverton, WY.

Quote
In WY, on the other hand, note that most of the population centers fit my description, even more than in Idaho - in the valleys and high plains, so that if you need to live anywhere near town (to make a living) you have to own a great deal more land in order to have any privacy. This is hardly an option for most people - both because it requires more money up-front and because the populated areas of the West (including WY) are more densely populated locally.

Land costs much less and is taxed at a much lower amount in WY.  I will get a mortage for $80,000-$150,000 when I move to the free state.  I have done the research and if I bought now in WY I could get 5-35 acres and a home near several cities in Wyoming for this price.  In other words, large amounts of land are for sale near cities for low prices.  I have not done the research but I doubt this is likely in NH.

Also, it depends how your define privacy.  I do not want land so the people that live near me cannot see me explode fireworks (which is highly regulated in NH) or dance around naked.  I want to ride a 4 wheeler, horses, fly a kite, cross country ski, build a shooting range in my back yard, and get very loud in other ways.

Quote
So, when it comes to issues like privacy, population density and quality-of-life, let's look at the whole picture. On these variables I would pick ID first and NH second, while for the greatest success of the FSP it seems clear that NH is first and ID second.

The Black Hills area of SD seems to have the quality of life I would most enjoy.  Amount of voters and expense of elections are so bad in NH that I am not able to put the state in the 2nd or 3rd position in my list.  WY is leaps and bounds above all other states, according to my spreadsheet (with ID, the 2nd place state, still being 20% behind WY).  I had to disqualify ID because it is a one party state with complete control by incumbents, a very strong religious control over the state, its complete seperation from large city MSAs, and most importantly its large and very quickly growing population.

My spreadsheet says: WY, ID, SD, AK, NH, ND, DE, VT, MT, ME
but I think that only WY, SD, AK, and NH are worth considering (in that order), for the FSP

I am not against NH.  I think it is better than the average state.  In fact, when I first joined the FSP it was my preferred state and I opted out of all of the Western states (I am from a large, eastern city).  However, after doing a great deal of research I realized that the West was the most libertarian, lowest taxed, and in WY and AK the least populated part of the country.  
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on February 07, 2003, 03:14:43 am
One issue in regard to quality of life is a person's ability to choose where they live, and most people are not very flexible on this.  The problem with New Hampshire here is that most FSPer's would have to live in the southern part of the state because that's where most of the people are located.  This effectively reduces our ability to choose where we will live if we are to be successful (emphasis here on local activism and voting by residency - not participating in rallies or get-togethers).

Because of their size and the relative distance between cities, the western states do allow more of a choice as to where FSPer's can live and still be successful.  In Wyoming, for instance, most of the population resides in the Cheyenne, Casper, Laramie, Sheridan, and Jackson areas.  And while FSPer's would need to be relatively concentrated in these regions to influence state politics, these cities are far enough apart that they differ in climate and terrain, thus allowing a greater diversity of lifestyle choices.

And the Green Party is growing stronger in New England, which does not bode well for the region's political leanings on the part of those who are apparently seeking third parties or other alternatives.  New Hamsphire has resisted this tendency to a greater degree than the states around it, but its independents still vote to the left.  

Out west, the Greens are also beginning to exercise their muscle in Montana, which does not bode well for that state's future either.  The Greens have much less support in Idaho, and I believe that they're not even on the ballot in Wyoming.

In comparing these two front-running states again, I cannot help but be struck by the fact that, for two states as free as they both already are, the rising political alternative in New Hampshire is leftist, while the rising political alternative in Wyoming is libertarian.  This, I believe, effectively demonstrates the leanings of their populations.

I realize that New Hampshire residents just turned out to defeat a state income tax proposal, but as in Tennessee, this is going to come up again and again as the state's rapidly rising population creates a demand for increased spending.  Traffic and schools, the two issues that DadElk referred to as on the rise in southern New Hampshire, are the two most prominent issues that generate local tax increases.

New Hampshirites may continue to reject a state income tax because of their unique status in the region, and because it will require state-wide support, which will be more difficult to obtain.  But local taxation is another story, and New Hampshire residents will likely take an increase in local taxation in order to stave off the threat of renewed cries for a state income tax.  Local tax increases do not depend upon state-wide support and will be simpler to increase, and the New England states have historically relied quite heavily on property taxation for education funding anyway.  "Live free or die" is liable to come in second to "educate my kid" and "widen this darned road already," at least when it comes to local taxation.

This is not a slam against New Hampshire; it's just an observation about the most common factors that gradually cause freedom to take it on the chin, and it is being replicated all over the country.  I expect the same thing to happen in Idaho out west since that state is currently growing faster than many countries.  They already have a state income tax though, and this may stave off local tax increases in the near future, for what it's worth.

Wyoming, on the other hand, has a 1.8 billion dollar reserve fund, which is funding increased state government needs in a state that is not growing nearly so quickly as New Hampshire and Idaho.  With less demand placed upon its infrastructure, it's far less likely to be subject to calls for new or increased taxation.  It's almost unique in the nation in this regard, and this would serve us well in that we would be able to get started in implementing reforms in an environment where the opposition does not have nearly as many convenience or "warm-fuzzy" issues to hit us with in calling for new or increased taxation.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Michelle on February 07, 2003, 08:30:34 am
Quote
NH has a lot going for it (probably already one of the two freest states in the country), so you don't have to go on about this minor concern of privacy. Instead, how about trying to convince us that population doesn't matter?

Sure. The reasons are summarized quite thoroughly on this page:
http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Michelle on February 07, 2003, 08:35:09 am
For those who don't want to click through, here are the reasons that NH *SHOULD* be picked. This is the text from the page (http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm) For the supporting references, you will need to click through.

-------------------------------------------------

The LPNH membership and executive board are very excited that New Hampshire is one of the ten states under consideration to be voted on when the Free State Project (FSP) membership reaches 5,000.

Through our exhaustive research, we are convinced that New Hampshire is the state offering the best chance for the success of the FSP goals.

What are some of the reasons for our confidence in promoting NH as the best FSP candidate?

Besides the fact that we are known for the spirit of independence that still backs our state motto, &#8220;Live Free or Die,&#8221;...besides the fact that we have NO general sales tax and NO general income tax,...besides that fact that NH is one of the only states on the biennial cycle, re-electing the entire state government every two years... and besides the fact that we offer excellent four-season recreation, spectacular scenery, and superb quality of life,...

Among the ten FSP states New Hampshire ranks as:
 
 #1 in the NATION for lowest taxes as a percentage of gross personal income - (learn more)
 
 #1 best chance for clean elections (Read research at the Yahoo Political Analysis Group)
 
 #1 best representation NATIONWIDE with our 400-member House of Representatives (learn more)
 
 #1 best true citizen legislature NATIONWIDE with only $100/year pay for house and senate members (learn more)
 
 #1 best check NATIONWIDE on the power of the governor through our elected governor&#8217;s council (learn more)

   #1 best chance for leverage in the national debate by voting in our first-in-the-NATION primaries.
 
 #1 for lowest dependence on federal dollars (learn more)
 
 #1 for overall quality of life/livability (#3 in the NATION) (Morgan Quitno Press, 2002)
 
 #1 for the lowest percentage of government employees and the smallest state and local government sector (learn more)
 
 #1 in the NATION for the least overall crime (FBI, 2001)
 
 #1 for lowest government spending as a percent of gross state product (learn more)
 
 #1 for least restrictive helmet, seatbelt, and mandatory insurance laws (we don&#8217;t have any!) (http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html and http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/state_laws/restrain.htm)
 
 #1 for the highest number of elected Libertarians - (learn more)
 
 #1 in the NATION for the highest density of LP members - (learn more)
 
 #1 for the highest percentage of high-tech jobs (#3 in the NATION) and #1 highest percentage of &#8220;knowledge&#8221; jobs - (learn more)
 
 #1 for the highest amount of venture capital invested in the state (#4 in the NATION) - (learn more)
 
 #1 for offering the most dynamic economy - (learn more)
 
 #1 healthiest state in the NATION, 2000 - (learn more)

New Hampshire also ranks as:
 
 #2, just behind Alaska, for highest median household income (2000 census)
 
 #2, just behind Vermont, for the least restrictive gun controls (learn more)
 
 #2, just behind Idaho, for highest projected job growth (learn more)

In short, we offer a strong foundation for FSP success and an existing environment in which FSP members will thrive &#8211; personally, economically, and politically. We are confident that New Hampshire&#8217;s high percentage of freedom-oriented citizens will welcome the FSP.  We hope that we can count on your support for both the Free State Project and New Hampshire. If we can answer any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

To contact the LPNH Welcome to the Granite State Committee, please email fsp-nh@lpnh.org

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: DadELK68 on February 07, 2003, 09:11:20 am
I wouldn't suggest that population doesn't matter - but I would argue that it's not necessarily the single most important variable, either. If it were, there would be no point in doing the research and discussing things like voting patterns and current levels of freedom in different areas, which are attempts to evaluate the current populations of the candidate states. If the underlying population and growth trends favor the success of the FSP, then it's something to be embraced.

My points on privacy are based on the misperception by many in the West that everyone in the East is living shoulder-to-shoulder.

I completely disagree with RobertH's contention that 'most FSP'ers would have to live in the southern part of the state' - the benefit of a smaller state is that it's easier to live anywhere and work somewhere else. The only reason anyone would HAVE to live near the southern border would be if they had to commute to MA for work; it's not unreasonable for someone to live in the middle of the state and commute to Manchester, Portsmouth, Concord or Nashua, or to live in the Northern part of the state and work anywhere within a moderate distance.

Land is more expensive out here in Southern NH, but not excessively so as you head northward - and while those who might work in MA might tend to move into the southern tier, anyone who works anywere else in the state would have great flexibility and could affordably live in a small city, a small town, or out in the woods on a large plot of land. In NH, it will be easier to distribute 20,000 more proportionately throughout every voting district and potentially have a greater impact statewide - in the West, as RobertH suggests most will be concentrated in the regions around the cities, where greater resentment between the cities and the rural residents already exists.

As for NH Independents voting to the left - part of the problem in the last few election cycles is that the Republican party, in the primary process, selected candidates for major offices (notably governor) who were poor candidates due to their personalities (e.g., Gordon Humphrey) and ultra-conservative stands on social issues (not exactly libertarian). As a result, higher numbers either didn't vote or held their noses as they voted, and I know many who leaned toward Jeanne Shaheen just because her challengers were so offensive (but they continued voting for Republican/libertarian state legislators and senators, to make sure that Shaheen wouldn't do much damage).

Given a more reasonable (small-L libertarian-leaning, more focused on economic rather than social conservatism) candidate, the last election shows that the overwhelming underlying support is NOT in the liberal direction, and the vast majority of people I speak with who are moving into the area are doing so partly because of freedom issues.

As for widening highways and building schools, as well as the local taxation issue - isn't it a good thing to have more focus on local taxation rather than state or federal? If towns depend on local taxes, then residents are more in control of both taxation and spending, and it also means more local control of schools. Along the I-93 corridor, where traffic has been steadily worsening due to increasing numbers of commuters to MA, widening the freeway has been planned for years - and a big state and local issue is that federal regulators are insisting on ridiculous measures in surrounding towns to compensate for projected environmental impacts of the project. People want the road widened, but don't want outsiders telling them what they have to do in their towns.

Hence, population and growth are issues - but if the current migration trends demonstrably favors the FSP, then this is a strength, not a weakness. A larger population more proportionately distributed, with a smaller proportion of 'natives' and lots of freedom-seeking people moving in bodes well for the FSP; a smaller population less broadly distributed in density with higher proportion of 'natives' and lower rate of immigration is more at risk of having the FSP being seen as an invasion.

That's why, as a resident of NH and former resident of ID, I think that NH and ID are the best candidates. I don't think the goal of the FSP is to 'take over', but rather to create a force which can help elements already in place to move further from statism and toward more freedom.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: JasonPSorens on February 07, 2003, 09:35:50 am
This is very good news.  I really find it hard to understand how a state that claims to be conservative is not a right-to-work state (AK is also like this).  That makes the state anti-bus. and it almost seems evil, IMHO.  

Well, let's not make too much of this.  The Libertarian Party opposes right-to-work laws on the grounds that they interfere with an employer's right to contract with exclusively union employees.  So long as the state is not a closed-shop state like CT, I'm not too worried about that particular factor.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: JasonPSorens on February 07, 2003, 09:44:45 am

Hence, population and growth are issues - but if the current migration trends demonstrably favors the FSP, then this is a strength, not a weakness. A larger population more proportionately distributed, with a smaller proportion of 'natives' and lots of freedom-seeking people moving in bodes well for the FSP; a smaller population less broadly distributed in density with higher proportion of 'natives' and lower rate of immigration is more at risk of having the FSP being seen as an invasion.


Hm, in my view it's difficult to imagine that any basically non-ideological migration would be an asset for the FSP.  Even if these are fiscal conservatives moving in, they're likely not solid, consistent libertarians.  Thus, while a major influx of fiscal conservatives should help us battle out-and-out authoritarians and leftists, it will make it a much harder task to accomplish some of our more..."ambitious" goals, like separation of school & state, legalization of marijuana, and so on.  All this is to say that I do think population in an absolute sense has to be a major factor in its own right.  You can't totally discount political culture either; you have to weigh them against each other, which is what the spreadsheet does. ;)
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on February 07, 2003, 10:29:07 am
Gotta run this morning, so I'll have to keep this brief.  And yes, that is possible.   ;D

I completely disagree with RobertH's contention that 'most FSP'ers would have to live in the southern part of the state' - the benefit of a smaller state is that it's easier to live anywhere and work somewhere else. The only reason anyone would HAVE to live near the southern border would be if they had to commute to MA for work; it's not unreasonable for someone to live in the middle of the state and commute to Manchester, Portsmouth, Concord or Nashua, or to live in the Northern part of the state and work anywhere within a moderate distance.

You completely misunderstood my contention, which had nothing to do with where people live as opposed to where they work.  What it had to do with was where people live and where they can be politically active or hold office.  Sixty percent of New Hampshire's population lives in the greater Boston-Warchester-Lawrence area close to the Massachusetts border.    If the FSP is to be successful, most of our activists are going to have to live and pursue activism in that area of the state.  Where they work will not matter as much, but to vote, or hold office, or have any influence with the locals, they're going to have to live where their constituents do, and this will not allow them much freedom of choice when it comes to lifestyle.  

As a result, we're not going to be able to just spread out evenly through the state, not if we want to succeed.  The majority of our activists will have to live where the majority of the state's residents live.

Quote
Given a more reasonable (small-L libertarian-leaning, more focused on economic rather than social conservatism) candidate, the last election shows that the overwhelming underlying support is NOT in the liberal direction, and the vast majority of people I speak with who are moving into the area are doing so partly because of freedom issues.

I can see why people would move in from the surrounding states (and, as stated previously, I believe the place will eventually become an island), but this last election brought out an unusually large turn-out as well, so I wouldn't view it as something we should place bets for the future on.

Quote
As for widening highways and building schools, as well as the local taxation issue - isn't it a good thing to have more focus on local taxation rather than state or federal? If towns depend on local taxes, then residents are more in control of both taxation and spending, and it also means more local control of schools.

Sure, it's a good thing to have more emphasis on local affairs and control, but the problem remains nonetheless, and it will, in all probability, be resolved by increased taxation.  This type of a growing infrastructure, supported by such tax dollars, will be harder to halt and scale back.  We need a more stagnent environment that is not subject to such rapid growth and change.  People with such pressing, socially-sensitive issues as education and transportation are not going to be ready to experiment with libertarian ideas when they can just hike the local bed tax or property tax and cover the bills quickly and simply.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: freedomroad on February 07, 2003, 02:21:23 pm

Because of their size and the relative distance between cities, the western states do allow more of a choice as to where FSPer's can live and still be successful.  In Wyoming, for instance, most of the population resides in the Cheyenne, Casper, Laramie, Sheridan, and Jackson areas.  And while FSPer's would need to be relatively concentrated in these regions to influence state politics, these cities are far enough apart that they differ in climate and terrain, thus allowing a greater diversity of lifestyle choices.


According to the Census B., the largest population centers of Wyoming are (in order): Cheyenne, Casper, Rock Springs/Green River, Laramie, Gillette, Sheridan, and the Riverton (Riverton is on native american land)/Lander area.  However, in 10 year the Laramie area might have more people than the Rock Springs/Green River area.  You are right, though, about Jackson being a growing area in Wyoming.  The Jackson area has lots of bus. from tourists and seasonal homes but it's population is still around just 10,000.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: DadELK68 on February 07, 2003, 02:31:51 pm
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on a few things. It's interesting how we can use the same information and each follow our own logic to arrive at opposite conclusions.  :-*

I don't think I misunderstood your point - I agree that the majority will likely live in the southern part of the state, but not because they HAVE to do so; it will be a natural process. My point is that there is no limitation on options (other than not being able to live in the sagebrush - but then, WY doesn't have a coastline and has far less water in streams/ponds/lakes than NH, so there's a tradeoff), or at least less so than in WY and most other Western states.

Rather, you seem to misunderstand my points - or at least dropped the ones in which I clearly addressed your concerns and focused on the more speculative, which appears to be a form of validation, thank you. ;D

It's more likely that 20,000 FSP participants could be spread proportionately (not evenly - that would be ridiculous, so it was a poor initial choice of words on my part) across NH than WY. Immigrants to WY would overwhelmingly AND disproportionately land near the cities; even for those wanting to live in more rural areas the options are limited because outside of the areas immediately adjacent to the cities (which are being developed as subdivisions) there are mostly 1) large tracts owned by the government, and 2) large tracts owned by individuals/corporate bodies as private rangeland, which won't be easily broken up into individual lots for sale. Therefore it will, in many cases, be harder for immigrants to 'penetrate' the less densely populated areas. In NH, there are lots of all sizes scattered throughout the state in areas with varying population densities, presenting many more options.

Most of these points are pretty subjective and speculative anyway - while we may not always count on high voter turnout, the fact remains that in the most recent NH election the unusually high turnout demonstrated a large shift away from liberalism, by much wider margins than the pundits predicted. Whether they turn out or not, this indicates that the underlying culture is NOT trending toward the Democrats/Greens as has been implied. They may be a very vocal minority who win a few in years with lower turnout, but hardly represent a trend.

As for the quality-of-life issues - there are many, many variables which in composite make this issue one which is highly subjective and individual, obviously. Some prefer the Black Hills, some prefer the Cimmarron, some prefer the White Mountains vs the Rockies, some prefer a house near the beach or on a lake, some prefer an apartment in the city.

The point of this discussion/debate is for people to read, think, ponder and then make the best decision they can when it comes time to vote, right? My goal is to add to the impressive list of reasons to pick NH summarized by Michelle, to counter/clarify some of the misconceptions being promoted by people who prefer the West - mostly those favoring WY.  ;)

Eric
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on February 08, 2003, 04:08:17 am
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on a few things. It's interesting how we can use the same information and each follow our own logic to arrive at opposite conclusions.  :-*

It's part of the basic ideological division that has been noted over and over again in these discussions in the past.

Quote
I don't think I misunderstood your point - I agree that the majority will likely live in the southern part of the state, but not because they HAVE to do so; it will be a natural process.

Many may settle there anyway because those who support New Hampshire generally seem interested in being near the "big city," and would thus have more access to Boston.  But the point I was making was that most will have to live there in order to be successful (for the FSP's purposes) because of the way the population is balanced.  Several other states (Alaska and Delaware, for example) are also balanced heavily to one end or another.

Quote
My point is that there is no limitation on options (other than not being able to live in the sagebrush - but then, WY doesn't have a coastline and has far less water in streams/ponds/lakes than NH, so there's a tradeoff), or at least less so than in WY and most other Western states.

Yes, all of these states are trade-off's in one form or another.  I like the ocean, but I wouldn't have that in Wyoming.  Oh well, at least I won't have to put up with the humidity, which is an aspect of living near the water that I definitely do not like.  That and mosquitoes.  ;)

Quote
Rather, you seem to misunderstand my points - or at least dropped the ones in which I clearly addressed your concerns and focused on the more speculative, which appears to be a form of validation, thank you. ;D

Don't order the party balloons just yet.  I did mention at the top of that post that I didn't have much time, did I not?  I hit the major aspects of what stood out most to me at the time.

Quote
Immigrants to WY would overwhelmingly AND disproportionately land near the cities; even for those wanting to live in more rural areas the options are limited because outside of the areas immediately adjacent to the cities (which are being developed as subdivisions) there are mostly 1) large tracts owned by the government, and 2) large tracts owned by individuals/corporate bodies as private rangeland, which won't be easily broken up into individual lots for sale. Therefore it will, in many cases, be harder for immigrants to 'penetrate' the less densely populated areas. In NH, there are lots of all sizes scattered throughout the state in areas with varying population densities, presenting many more options.

I believe I mentioned that most of our activists would likely settle in those more urban areas as it is, given our current demographic and the fact that it would be necessary to our success.  The point was that doing so would still allow them a variety of choices in terms of climate and surroundings.  Fewer of our number are going to head off into the wilderness, thus immigrants trying to penetrate the less densely populated areas is not going be a tremendous issue.  

And I fail to understand why the free market will not work in this situation as it seems to work everywhere else.  If there is a demand for land, which pushes up the price of said land above the pennies that it's worth now, those who have it are going to sell off some of it for profit.  As for government owned land, the issue of immigration there is moot at any rate.  Wyoming has plenty of non-government owned land.

Quote
Most of these points are pretty subjective and speculative anyway - while we may not always count on high voter turnout, the fact remains that in the most recent NH election the unusually high turnout demonstrated a large shift away from liberalism, by much wider margins than the pundits predicted. Whether they turn out or not, this indicates that the underlying culture is NOT trending toward the Democrats/Greens as has been implied. They may be a very vocal minority who win a few in years with lower turnout, but hardly represent a trend.

So several such years of consistent leftist activity should not be interpreted as a trend and given any weight whatsoever, but one election, an election in which voter turnout was mostly inspired by a single issue, should be viewed as a developing trend?  How do you base claims of a trend on one sample?

From the earlier post:

Quote
As for NH Independents voting to the left - part of the problem in the last few election cycles is that the Republican party, in the primary process, selected candidates for major offices (notably governor) who were poor candidates due to their personalities (e.g., Gordon Humphrey) and ultra-conservative stands on social issues (not exactly libertarian). As a result, higher numbers either didn't vote or held their noses as they voted, and I know many who leaned toward Jeanne Shaheen just because her challengers were so offensive (but they continued voting for Republican/libertarian state legislators and senators, to make sure that Shaheen wouldn't do much damage).

From what I've seen of New Hampshire politics, this is a state that can't quite make up it's mind where it's going now, and I hardly think we can afford to bet the farm on a state in such a position of political flux.  Particularly since we have candidate states in more liberty-friendly regions of the country with more dependable voting records and less rapidly growing populations.  This sort of infant political movement needs a stable, more dependable system to set the foundation for a sustained effort.  Rapid growth and change bring enhanced uncertainty and polarization, neither of which is healthy for what we have in mind with the tools that we currently have at our disposal (ie: a host of zealous but inexperienced activists).

Quote
A larger population more proportionately distributed, with a smaller proportion of 'natives' and lots of freedom-seeking people moving in bodes well for the FSP; a smaller population less broadly distributed in density with higher proportion of 'natives' and lower rate of immigration is more at risk of having the FSP being seen as an invasion.

Neither Wyoming nor New Hampshire is what could be accurately labeled as "proportionately distributed" in terms of population.  Most of Wyoming's population is concentrated in cities spread around the state leaving wider open spaces with fewer inhabitants, while most of New Hampshire's residents are scattered across the southernmost portion of the state leaving the northern half less inhabited.  

As for a mostly non-native population, I agree with this, and of the FSP's candidate states, only Alaska ranks better than Wyoming and New Hampshire, which rank at 42.5 and 43.3 % respectively (Alaska has a 38.1% native population).

Wyoming has a lower immigration rate, but as long as this migration is conducted gradually, which it will have to be anyway, it should not be seen as much of an invasion, particularly if we bring economic opportunites with us.  The state's population is already liberty-friendly, so as long as we don't try advocating an extreme libertarian agenda right from the get-go, we should be fine.  A state with a faster growing population, which is already beginning to cause strains to its infrastructure, may be less welcoming of more people in general.  To that end, I would refer you to another New Hampshire resident's opinion:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=550 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=550)
Title: Re:Maybe NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on March 29, 2003, 08:57:48 pm
**If the FSP does not choose New Hampshire, I&#8217;m concerned that the NHLP and some of its members may then try to undermine an FSP effort elsewhere by running a "second state" campaign to draw off eastern and other support. (The Idaho LP and other state LP&#8217;s could try to do the same.) As others note, the LPNH or other state LP&#8217;s may be in this for themselves first and foremost even if they destroy the FSP and the ensuing Free State effort to do it. They could run a viscious mud-slinging &#8220;Burn The Unpure Heretics&#8221; campaign if it looks like their state won't be chosen. This could turn big and small "L" libertarians against the FSP and against Libertarians in general.

I am more worried about this happening if New Hampshire *is* picked. It appears to me that there are many more pro-west supporters who flat-out refuse to move east than vice-versa.

Quote
**If the FSP does move to NH, then the NHLP may try to force the Porcupines to adhere to the typical LP purist arrogance, paper candidates, and shooting-themselves-in-the-foot way of conducting politics. And if the Porcupines want to do it otherwise in order to have the Free State succeed they may incur the wrath of the LPNH again with a &#8220;Burn The Unpure Heretics&#8221; campaign along the lines of:
"If you're not going to be a "real Libertarian" and stay toe the party line then the party will defeat you by running candidates against you and by showing just how hypocritical and non-libertarian you bunch of turncoats really are."
OR
The more radical and &#8220;pure&#8221; of the NHLP members may may try to whip up New England fear of invasion by meddling outsiders.

This has happened to former LP members who joined the Republicans and to those who've "compromised" on issues while in office or on a campaign. Regardless of how the state vote goes, the ensuing Free State effort could be defeated. I've seen some of both tactics above happen to me here and especially read of it happening elsewhere.

This is absolutely inconceivable to me. I don't care whether porcupines call themselves "Libertarians", "Porcupine Party", "Free State Party", "Republicans" or whatever else they like - I just want to set this state free. And the rest of the LPNH core feels the same way (as I have already written in the "Case for New Hampshire" thread).
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: stpeter on March 29, 2003, 10:08:47 pm
According to the Census B., the largest population centers of Wyoming are (in order): Cheyenne, Casper, Rock Springs/Green River, Laramie, Gillette, Sheridan, and the Riverton (Riverton is on native american land)/Lander area.  
Have you ever been to Riverton, Wyoming? It's a regular old American town (i.e., mostly Anglo). As far as I can tell from having travelled through there a few times, the land is all privately owned. The surrounding land is in the Wind River Reservation, though. Not that that's a bad thing. :)
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: stpeter on March 29, 2003, 10:58:25 pm
All this East vs. West stuff is really starting to annoy me. I'm from Maine and now live in Colorado, and have lived or travelled extensively in most of the states under consideration (other than the Dakotas and Alaska). Over ten years ago I wrote and privately circulated something I called "The Monadnock Proposal", in which I argued for a mass migration of freedom-oriented people to New Hampshire. At that time I thought NH was the ideal location for such a movement, and when I discovered the FSP I was thinking the same way -- "great, finally someone got organized about that Monadnock Proposal of mine and now we can all move to NH and live happily ever after in freedom..."

Over a year of research later, I think Wyoming is the best location. I still think NH is a fine place and quite freedom-oriented. However, the LPNH can tout all of those #1 rankings to their heart's content (though many of them are irrelevant to the FSP's prospects for success) -- the fact remains that any differential on the freedom scale in NH's favor (and I remain unconvinced that such a differential exists) cannot overcome the huge population differential between NH (or ID for that matter) and WY.

Right now every state in the union has a miniscule number of libertarian activists per capita, so the difference between NH and other states in this regard is immaterial. What matters is figuring out how many activists we need to turn any given state into the Free State. Jason's research on the Parti Quebecois indicates that the PQ had one activist for every 62 people, and that this was sufficient in Quebec for the PQ to elect a majority to the legislature. Personally I think this ratio would be insufficient to turn a U.S. state into the Free State. There has not been much discussion of this assumption within the FSP, but even if we concluded that a ratio of 1:100 might work, I see no reason to be overly optimistic about the FSP's chances of success, and thus no reason to choose a state that is absolutely larger than necessary.

In Wyoming, 20,000 porcupines would result in a ratio of 1:18 (1:11 for voting population). In NH or ID, the ratio would be 1:46 or 1:47 (1:29 or 1:25 for voting population). I really want to see someone argue that NH or ID is three times better than WY regarding the potential for building a Free State. Pointing to a bunch of #1 scores on a few measures tells us nothing about this crucial matter -- any advocate of WY or ID could do the same thing. The crux of the issue is: given all of the factors under consideration, which state provides the best environment for creating a Free State?

Ignoring the population factor is myopic at best. I agree that NH is a fairly free place, as are ID, MT, WY, and several other states. But I would never argue that ID and NH are three times as free as WY, or that MT is two times as free as WY. This is not mindless boosterism for WY (I don't even live there); rather, it is a reasoned conclusion that a lot of active people on this board have come to after months of agonizing over the details of law, legislature, population, ideology, climate, and a hundred other factors.

Unfortunately I have not seen our friends in New Hampshire address the issues in depth -- instead, they have all too often assumed or asserted that "NH is best" (perhaps because the LPNH has more members per capita than all other states). We don't need assumptions and assertions, we need indisputable facts and well-reasoned arguments that NH (or ID or any other state) is the best place to pursue this dream of a Free State. There are countless threads in this discussion forum where people like Robert Hawes and Joe Swyers have analyzed the issues in exhaustive detail. I haven't seen the NH folks in there rebutting Robert, Joe, and others point for point when they have argued persuasively, based on massive amounts of evidence, that Wyoming is the strongest candidate state. Instead I see one or two separate threads in which NH is celebrated and promoted. This is counter-productive. We need to all work together on choosing a state, based on the best evidence and arguments we can muster. So no matter which state you think is best today, I say: join the conversation. When exposed to the facts and arguments being presented, you just might change your mind. Heck, you might even change my mind. :)
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: freedomroad on March 29, 2003, 11:01:39 pm
According to the Census B., the largest population centers of Wyoming are (in order): Cheyenne, Casper, Rock Springs/Green River, Laramie, Gillette, Sheridan, and the Riverton (Riverton is on native american land)/Lander area.  
Have you ever been to Riverton, Wyoming? It's a regular old American town (i.e., mostly Anglo). As far as I can tell from having travelled through there a few times, the land is all privately owned. The surrounding land is in the Wind River Reservation, though. Not that that's a bad thing. :)

No.  I have not ever been to Riverton.  I understand that you are saying, even though Riverton is on a Indian Reservation, that it is mostly white.  I think that is a great thing.  I remember someone from Montana talking about how many of the non-Native Americans (in Montana) live on Indian Reservation because they are more free, or somthing to that.  

I cannot say anything about if a non-Native American town on Native American land helps or hurts Wyoming when compared to NH.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on March 30, 2003, 05:08:30 am
What bothers me the most here (reference the article link Joe posted above) is that there is an active effort being made to stuff the FSP's voter roles with rubber-stampers who have only one thing in mind when they join: voting for one state and to heck with the rest.

Even if they do win the vote, can we really count on much effort on the part of those who only joined up in the first place because they were assured that their joining would involve only minimal risk and committment?  Is that the type of "activist" pool we should be drawing from?

What will that do to the confidence of others who voted and have such high hopes for what this project might accomplish?

And what happens even if they don't win?  They might still be able to skew the vote by putting the remaining nine states in some flippant order.  Or they could hamper the entire effort by dropping from the roles after the vote and leaving us to make up the difference.

Once again, what will that do to the confidence of others who voted and have such high hopes for what this project might accomplish?

We are looking for activists for the best state for liberty.  People who understand what each of these states are about and can cast an informed, reasoned vote to that end.  People who have something invested in the outcome and can be counted on to do the work that is necessary for achieving liberty in our lifetime.

We are not looking people who are going to plunk their names down just so that they can cast a single-minded vote, and we do not need a state political machine playing "pied piper" by recruiting them to do so.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on March 30, 2003, 09:24:41 am
The Free State activists WILL be savaged by "Libertarians" (LP members) for not immediately privatizing schools, eliminating all taxes, legalizing all drugs, and a whole wish list of other stuff.

And those FSP members who are convinced that New Hampshire is the best state and are doing something about it (because NH is the only candidate where vote counting fraud can be prevented, has multiple grassroots freedom movements springing up independent of any political party, and has the smallest house districts in the nation) will be savaged by those who would rather debate about which of the three climate reports is most relevant (or God knows what other absurd factors to add to their spreadsheets) rather than get out and recruit FSP members.

Why don't you guys go out and recruit some studious, thoughtful, open-minded FSP members who will give all of your spreadsheets the proper consideration and respect that they deserve? You would then easily neutralize whatever minor advantage the pro-NH faction has managed to gain with its active recruiting and we could stop this inane discussion.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on March 30, 2003, 09:54:54 am
Quote
because NH is the only candidate where vote counting fraud can be prevented...

Somehow, I find such an appeal coming from one who is representative of a group that is trying to stuff the FSP's vote with paper members to be less than convincing.

And you forgot that New Hampshire has the largest Senate districts of these candidate states.   ;)
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on March 30, 2003, 10:27:31 am
Quote
because NH is the only candidate where vote counting fraud can be prevented...

Somehow, I find such an appeal coming from one who is representative of a group that is trying to stuff the FSP's vote with paper members to be less than convincing.


And you forgot that New Hampshire has the largest Senate districts of these candidate states.   ;)


100% of New Hampshire's votes are recorded on paper ballots and 60% of NH municipalities count them by hand. Counting takes place at the precinct, beginning immediately after the polls close, and in full view of the public. No other candidate state offers these protections. If you do not understand the value in this (few porcupines do), please refer to the book "Votescam" by James and Kenneth Collier.

I have not forgotten anything about New Hampshire's senate districts. Once a caucus of libertarians is elected into the NH house, NH voters will see that there are viable alternatives to the prevailing system and the 37% of them who are registered independent will give proper consideration to libertarian senate candidates.

And we already have a libertarian governor who happens to wear an (R) label due to political expediency. He is so popular that he will be able to win as many terms as he cares to.  ;)
Title: NH should be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on March 30, 2003, 10:44:46 am
"those FSP members who are convinced that New Hampshire is the best state and are doing something about it... will be savaged by those who would rather debate about which of the three climate reports is most relevant (or God knows what other absurd factors to add to their spreadsheets) rather than get out and recruit FSP members."

Watching the war news the other day, a General was asked why the war does not seem to be going as quickly as people expected... His answer:

"Armchair generals plan strategy. REAL generals plan logistics".

We in New Hampshire are planning logistics. Not "what will we do once we get in power?" which is what has had the LP spinning in circles for 30 years, but planning to GET into power... NOT because we are power-mad (I wouldn't normally take a 20 hr/wk job for $2000/yr)... But because we can and ARE making a difference... We already have more Libertarians per capita in office than ANY other state, and this year alone, we will likely come close to doubling our numbers, AND form affiliates in every NH county... Plus the LPNH chair has been named to a state-wide commission BY OUR GOVERNOR.

Complain about tactics if you want, but we are doing what it takes to win.

The Senate races? Who cares about the size... They are STILL dirt cheap... $10,000 will get you into the state Senate... And I am well on track to raise that amount just for Keene City Council.

I suppose "great thinker" doesn't believe baseball players should steal bases either (go Johnny!)... Fine, whatever, keep reading Ayn Rand. We are in the real world, and Taggart Railway stops in New Hampshire...

JM
Title: Re:NH should be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on March 30, 2003, 11:12:18 am
We in New Hampshire are planning logistics. Not "what will we do once we get in power?" which is what has had the LP spinning in circles for 30 years, but planning to GET into power... NOT because we are power-mad (I wouldn't normally take a 20 hr/wk job for $2000/yr)... But because we can and ARE making a difference... We already have more Libertarians per capita in office than ANY other state, and this year alone, we will likely come close to doubling our numbers, AND form affiliates in every NH county...

And where are you getting this sudden influx of new libertarians from?

Quote
Plus the LPNH chair has been named to a state-wide commission BY OUR GOVERNOR.

Commissions are hardly known as places where you put people to get anything accomplished.  They are generally where politicians put people to throw them a bone and silence them.  If your commission turns out to be more successful than that, then congratulations.  But until then, I wouldn't expect miracles.  I'd rely more on proven political history.

Quote
Complain about tactics if you want, but we are doing what it takes to win.

Thank you for being honest enough to at least admit it.  The Republicans and Democrats, et al, also do what it takes to win and that is part of what I believe we are trying to fight here with the FSP: people who will do whatever it takes to get into power and advance themselves.  Such people seldom cease the use of such tactics once they've achieved office; if anything, they increase their use of them to keep and expand the power they've attained.

Winning is important, but the FSP is not about recruting a bunch of people just to win a vote.  It's about recruiting activists to change a state, and that effort is not assisted by recruting a bunch of people with the appeal that they take minimum risk and involvement.  How will that sort of approach translate into activism?

"Yes, ma'am, you can still work for liberty here, but feel free to opt out of phone bank, letter drives, literature distribution...just vote as we encourage you to."

Quote
The Senate races? Who cares about the size... They are STILL dirt cheap... $10,000 will get you into the state Senate... And I am well on track to raise that amount just for Keene City Council.

Just $10,000 by itself?  Senate seats are for sale in New Hampshire?  I'll take a baker's dozen.   ;)

Quote
I suppose "great thinker" doesn't believe baseball players should steal bases either (go Johnny!)...  

I suppose you don't understand that baseball is a game, and that what the FSP is involved in is not a game.  We're not doing this to sell tickets, or make fan clubs, or sell hotdogs in the stands.

Quote
Fine, whatever, keep reading Ayn Rand.

Actually, I prefer Asmiov.

Quote
We are in the real world, and Traggert Railway stops in New Hampshire...

Via "the great train robbery" revisited, it appears.   ;)
Title: Re:NH should be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on March 30, 2003, 11:38:33 am
It does not matter if you prefer Asimov or Rand. If you guys don't get off your asses and do something besides self-righteous whining, New Hampshire will win anyway.  ;D

"Self-righteous" is a rather loaded term for you people to be using, George.

And I'm sorry, but I do not consider state research and discussion (and yes, believe it or not, more than one state is being considered here) to be doing nothing.  Some of us prefer not to be dictated to as to what we should do or what we should believe; we investigate the facts and make a decision for ourselves.  That idea should not come as a surprise among libertarians most of all.

I can't speak for others, but I've made mine and I'm acting on it in various ways now.  But I have no intention of being somebody's lemming.


Title: NH should be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on March 30, 2003, 11:51:27 am
"And where are you getting this sudden influx of new libertarians from?"

Quite a few are already picked for candidates, activists and volunteers... Keep in mind we have a 4-digit mailing list...
PLUS we have a brilliant plan in place to get a LOT more REALLY quickly... :o) How? Ancient New Hampshire secret...  

"Winning is important, but the FSP is not about recruting a bunch of people just to win a vote.  It's about recruiting activists to change a state"

If the right state wins (NH :O)), there isn't much changing needed...  

"Just $10,000 by itself?  Senate seats are for sale in New Hampshire?  I'll take a baker's dozen"

ALL political seats are for sale.. And SOLD! That'll be $130,000... Political chump change..

"I suppose you don't understand that baseball is a game,"

I can tell YOU are not a Red Sox fan... lol...

"and that what the FSP is involved in is not a game.  We're not doing this to sell tickets, or make fan clubs, or sell hotdogs in the stands."

Nope, it's to sell liberty, make parties, and get people elected... From 12 years in sales, let me tell you... widgets are widgets. Doesn't matter what you are selling, it is the same thing.

"Actually, I prefer Asmiov."

Funny... I was OBSESSED with Asimov and Sagan as a kid... His non-fiction work... Even as a kid, I hated fiction...

"Via "the great train robbery" revisited, it appears."

Nope. Roberies are illegal. What we are doing is perfectly kosher. Now to continue with the train analogy, I was in Midi station in Brussels last year (ever been there), and looking for gate 14 with 7 1/2 minutes left... You might think it would be between gates 13 and 15, but it is not.  ::)
I had a choice between standing in the information line for 45 mins-1 hr (and if you have ever been in a European rail information room, you would know this is conservative), or cutting to the front of the line to get information... I got the info and made the train...

I am not saying we should be, or are being underhanded... Just using the EVERY tool at our disposal to bring the FSP vote to the state where we can do the greatest amount of good by selecting the freest state to begin with (AKA, New Hampshire).

We are fighting for NH not because we don't won't to move (which is also true), but because we feel NH is THE best choice for the FSP...

JM
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on March 30, 2003, 12:43:55 pm
This is my last one for this morning as I have to be elsewhere soon...

Quote
PLUS we have a brilliant plan in place to get a LOT more REALLY quickly... ) How? Ancient New Hampshire secret...  

Perhaps not as secret as all that.   ;)

Quote
If the right state wins (NH :O)), there isn't much changing needed...  

Really?  It's a wonder you need the FSP at all then.

Quote
Nope, it's to sell liberty, make parties, and get people elected... From 12 years in sales, let me tell you... widgets are widgets. Doesn't matter what you are selling, it is the same thing.

Have you shared this analogy with your potential constituents?   ;)

Quote
Nope. Roberies are illegal. What we are doing is perfectly kosher.

Encouraging people to join the FSP by luring new members with the least committment, all to sway the vote for New Hampshire?  Kosher, perhaps in that there is no restriction against it.  But I seriously question its wisdom, as is probably evident by now.

Quote
I had a choice between standing in the information line for 45 mins-1 hr (and if you have ever been in a European rail information room, you would know this is conservative), or cutting to the front of the line to get information... I got the info and made the train...

I imagine that you're saying that some spend time waiting around while others take action, which is all fine and good.  But you still got the information, correct?  Which was necessary in order for you to act, which is what a number of us have done.  A few of us started out believing we knew which states were best, commenced with research, and later came to different conclusions.

As for cutting in line to get the information, in front of those who were waiting for some time, I suppose...it may be effective, but can you honestly tell me that it was right?  I'm not interested in an "ends justifies the means" theme for the FSP.  What made your schedule so much more important than those of the others you one-upped?

Quote
I am not saying we should be, or are being underhanded... Just using the EVERY tool at our disposal to bring the FSP vote to the state where we can do the greatest amount of good by selecting the freest state to begin with (AKA, New Hampshire).

This is the same sort of justification that the Democrats used when they violated campaign finance laws in a recent election:  "we had to do whatever was necessary to stop those Republicans from destroying the country."  LOL

Unfortunately, there are those who do not believe that New Hampshire is the best state for liberty, and thus fail to appreciate the tactics you all are using to do what you think is best for everyone.  And again, I thought the FSP was about trying to undo the work of those who impose their laws and regulations for what they believe is the good of everyone - whether those poor souls understand it or not.   ;)

Will these tactics stop after the state vote, or will you all continue to do what you must for what you think is best for everyone?

Quote
We are fighting for NH not because we don't won't to move (which is also true), but because we feel NH is THE best choice for the FSP...

Working for what state you feel is best is fine, but I don't believe it justifies diluting the FSP's voting membership with those who are here for only one reason: to vote for your state.  The FSP is about more than that.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on March 30, 2003, 01:45:50 pm
I think the "cutting in line at the train station" analogy is a poor one. Doing so would violate the rules governing that train station - the LPNH has not done anything which violates the FSP rules. We are simply encouraging people to join the FSP, presenting our argument for why we think NH is best, and making people aware of the participation guidelines.

If opting out of more than a certain number of states is "wrong", then the FSP board of directors should amend the participation guidelines to set some limit on opt-outs (I like the idea of three as a limit - that way one cannot opt out of an entire side of the country).

Personally I have not opted out of nine states and I am willing to move to any state where the project can succeed (including some states I previously opted out of) . The only states I am giving no consideration to are Delaware and Wyoming because I believe that the project could never work in either of those states. I find several of the others to be really weak sisters, too. But if DE or WY ends up being picked I will be willing to change my mind and move to either of them if I see sufficient evidence that the project is working.

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: thewaka on March 30, 2003, 01:50:14 pm
... (because NH ... has the smallest house districts in the nation)

But the largest house, so 201 members needed for the barest of majorities x 3089 = 620889 people to reach. More than the ENTIRE population of WY. Please, instead of keeping the NH threads bumped to the top of the forum, explain on the other threads why those positive points for WY, MT, etc, ARE NOT of benefit compared to NH. As said above, convince us that NH is 3 times better than WY.

There are lots of reasons I would prefer NH to WY, but not when I think of what the point of this whole project is: to create a free state. I can make do with clay soil, no trees, high winds, lack of amenities. I want no longer to suffer under the burden of statutes and regulations that have no business being passed by legislatures, city councils, etc. Freedom in WY with a long, expensive road to good soil is worth more to me than good shopping and a great harvest in NH.

Diana
Title: NH should be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on March 30, 2003, 02:05:48 pm
"It's a wonder you need the FSP at all then."

For guaranteed wins up and down the board, yes, we do need the FSP. But, with a few hundred volunteers, we have holding holding the line for many years..

But imagine this scenario...

You are chief of staff of an army of small guerrilla groups.. Most of your groups are having their behinds handed to them by the two much larger armies you face.

A brilliant paradigm shift occurs in your advisors. A new plan... Take a few people from each group, and form one large division to march into one place. Well, there's lots of things to consider... Size of the enemy forces, goals which could be reached from a given point, et al.

One group has held it's own since the formation of your army. It has made significant inroads, and even driven back several offenses from the two large opposing armies. They are nearest one of the largest goals you could hope to capture (the 1st, and most watched, presidential nomination in the country); they are on ground that brought our freedom army to power (one of the first 13 states), and all we need is those reinforcements to take this whole area, and keep it.
One of the two large armies, the less friendly one, is weak there.

Where are you going to put the new division?

"Have you shared this analogy with your potential constituents? "

Anyone who has done sales knows it.  

"there is no restriction against it.  But I seriously question its wisdom, as is probably evident by now."

That is what makes debate so much fun... :o)

"What made your schedule so much more important than those of the others you one-upped?"

Because inefficencies in the system (Midi Station/Government) made that the only available option.  

"Will these tactics stop after the state vote, or will you all continue to do what you must for what you think is best for everyone?"

This is a republic, not a democracy. It is the duty of elected officials "to do what [they] must for what [they] think is best for everyone".

"but I don't believe it justifies diluting the FSP's voting membership with those who are here for only one reason: to vote for your state. "

People who don't believe in the goals of the FSP are not going to sign the pledge, regardless. We are not diluting the membership, we are finding the most likely signers from the most likely populations, and clarifying the rules for them.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on March 30, 2003, 02:18:48 pm
convince us that NH is 3 times better than WY.

All I can tell you is that 60% of New Hampshire's population is fed up with the existing situation here. In NH, you don't pay taxes a dribble at a time with each paycheck or trip to the store. You get walloped twice a year when your property tax bill arrives. People are furious about this and are clamoring for change. The change they are advocating is not the introduction of some other tax to offset the property tax (witness the results of the 2002 election) - they want smaller government and especially to break the public education monopoly.

Pro-freedom groups are springing up everywhere in this state and people of all political stripes are talking openly about a revolution (NH is the only state whose constitutution guarantees citizens a right to revolution).

I'm sorry - I cannot put this factor into a spreadsheet for you and one has to be on the ground to really understand what is happening here. The few NH residents who post in this forum probably cannot convince you of why we think this state is such fertile ground for the FSP - many posters in this forum seem to have already made up their minds to vote for Wyoming. So be it, and I really do hope they succeed in WY if it wins the FSP vote.

For our part, we know that New Hampshire can be set free and we have every intention of doing just that through every legal means at our disposal.
Title: NH should be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on March 30, 2003, 02:39:48 pm
"But the largest house, so 201 members needed for the barest of majorities x 3089 = 620889 people to reach. More than the ENTIRE population of WY."

You don't need a majority to win... You only need one person, preferably a few, to convince a majority to vote for/against a bill.. The LPNH held inordinate power in the state house a few years back with only a few reps by not being tied to party labels,  and building coalitions.
Ergo, to get a state house, you don't need to hold a majority. You just need to get a few good people into seats. THAT is easiest to accomplish with smaller districts.

"(witness the results of the 2002 election) - they want smaller government and especially to break the public school monopoly on education."

The school district in Keene pulled out ALL STOPS on the last warrant article for an increase in their budget of $440,000. It passed, but only 53-47%. They lost near everything else.

"Pro-freedom groups are springing up everywhere around here and people of all political stripes are openly talking about a revolution "

The taxpayers group in Keene (http://www.keenetaxpayers.org)has 1,100 members with only 10,000 voters in town. We make the paper almost every day, often front page.

"most posters in this forum have already made up their minds to vote for Wyoming"

I think I have counted about a half dozen pro-WY posters. I think Montana and Delaware both have more supporters than that.

I really wish we could have a straw poll of sorts... Though I see why not...

BTW... The only state I have opted out of is Alaska... Just way...too...cold.... :o)

JM

Title: NH should be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on March 30, 2003, 03:04:44 pm
Hi Joe:

I'm glad you asked... I have posted a bit before about Vermont (I lived there for a year, and currently live in Keene, 1/2 hour from the VT border).

"You would think that, being next door to Maine and Vermont, they could give us some detailed insight into those states."  

Vermont is incredibly beautiful. The people are an interesting lot... They express "road rage" by waving... aka, the Vermont finger... lol...
The state is very very liberal... Which, as far as social issues goes, is wonderful. There are civil unions, for instance.
However, It felt when I lived there that I was getting taxed everytime I moved a nickle from one pocket to another. I also ran a business there, and the paperwork for vt taxes was incredible... Even the personal state income tax (grrrrrr) was a really long, drawn out, one-size-fits-all form.
Some nice museums, sugaring trees in February is a major event, nature starts 5 feet over the city line...
The Democrats and Republicans both seem really weak in VT.. The Greens and Socialists have a strong hold on the state. I had thought that if VT was chosen as the Free State, that would make it interesting... the first state to move beyond D&R labels.

"Vermont, especially, is half the population of New Hampshire and has similar legislative access.  "

Correct on poulation, but VT has only about 150 reps, not 400. Our districts have a 33% better representation...

"I believe that Vermont is an easier state to make Free than New Hampshire. "

OK.. Why?

"Much of the south end of New Hampshire may be similarly liberal as Vermont (or Delaware) is. "

Only the very southwest of NH (Cheshire County, where I am), is largely liberal, and even here, we have the most active taxpayer group in the state.

"One quarter of the New Hampshire House are from Massachusetts! "

And WHAT does that mean? I grew up in New York! Doesn't make me a Democrat...

"Are those "liberty-minded" ex-Massachusetts people or are they liberal infiltrators?"

Or tax refugees...

" I've read little from the New Hampshire bunch proving why Vermont (or South Dakota or any other state) would not be easier. "

Hope I gave a little of both sides, I will let someone with more experience in Maine answer those questions..

Why do we NH-FSP'ers not post more about Vermont and Maine? Because a) NH is the far better choice and b) We want this project to work. NH is the best place for it... A better question would be why don't VT and ME supporters post more about their own states?

JM
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on March 30, 2003, 03:07:26 pm
Much of the south end of New Hampshire may be similarly liberal as Vermont (or Delaware) is.

Absolutely not true. Many of the most freedom-oriented members of the current NH house were elected from the rapidly growing districts in Rockingham and Hillsborough counties.

Quote
One quarter of the New Hampshire House are from Massachusetts!

This seems to be very interesting to you (because you keep mentioning it), but it does not surprise me in the least. It is probably just about the same % of NH's population which was born in Mass.  

Quote
Are those "liberty-minded" ex-Massachusetts people or are they liberal infiltrators?

See my first comment.

Quote
I've read little from the New Hampshire bunch proving why Vermont (or South Dakota or any other state) would not be easier.

I think Vermont is a fairly good choice among the 10 states. As you wrote, the house is accessible. The main problem I see with VT (and Maine) is that the populations of both states really dislike outsiders (the same is true to a degree in NH, but not nearly as much so). Look at the FSP membership in VT, ME, and NH. Membership is absolutely pathetic in VT and ME. I wonder why? Also, land use restrictions are so severe in VT that I'm not sure how possible it would be to provide housing for 20,000 immigrants. And the % of (unclassical) liberals has got to be way higher than in NH.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on March 31, 2003, 04:35:30 am
Quote
Where are you going to put the new division?

I think that there is some serious hubris at work here.  You all in New Hampshire seem to think that no one else in the country is even interested in the fight for liberty; or that such a fight is irrevelant, at best, outside of your borders.

As for the presidential primary focusing attention in your direction, if libertarians do get control of the state, the media and political pundits will de-emphasize its importance as a state under the control of "extremists."  You're not going to be able to back those people into a corner, not when they have so many other states that they can create a case for on behalf of a largely gullible public.

Quote
What made your schedule so much more important than those of the others you one-upped?"

Because inefficencies in the system (Midi Station/Government) made that the only available option.  

There was another option: waiting in line like everyone else.  You chose to do what you did because it was expedient for you.  No one forced you into it.

Quote
This is a republic, not a democracy. It is the duty of elected officials "to do what [they] must for what [they] think is best for everyone".

To a certain degree that is true, but it must somewhat fall within the expectations of their constituencies, else, they will not be returned to office in many cases.  And what action they do take must be firmly grounded in some principle other than expediency, which is the surest path to corruption.

Quote
People who don't believe in the goals of the FSP are not going to sign the pledge, regardless. We are not diluting the membership, we are finding the most likely signers from the most likely populations, and clarifying the rules for them.

Clarifying the rules for them in advance, you mean, before they even know the rules.  In other words, leading them from the start.  

And by "diluting the membership," I am not talking about bringing in statists or anything like that.  I'm talking about luring the lowest common denominator type of participant: a voter, as opposed to an activist.  The FSP cannot succeed with single minded voters, unless, given your previous comments, you feel that all New Hampshire needs is a large number of voters to back the few of you who have already set an agenda in place.

If so, and if New Hampshire wins the vote due to this sort of thing, then I really hope for your sakes that the people who you sign up just for a vote actually move and prove useful to you.  Given the level of committment with which you attract them, I really don't see how you could expect them to.

But I suppose this conversation is really useless beyond this point.  We're beating a dead horse here, and, frankly, I find this sort of thing at work in the FSP to be extremely disheartening.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: craft_6 on March 31, 2003, 09:38:47 am
And by "diluting the membership," I am not talking about bringing in statists or anything like that.  I'm talking about luring the lowest common denominator type of participant: a voter, as opposed to an activist.  The FSP cannot succeed with single minded voters, unless, given your previous comments, you feel that all New Hampshire needs is a large number of voters to back the few of you who have already set an agenda in place.

Anyone who is signing up to join the FSP, regardless of how many states they opt out of (preferably zero), should note that more than just voting is expected of them.  From the FAQ:

"After moving, our members will probably decide to do more than just vote. In general, to succeed in the political arena, each of us would have to do at least three of the following: supporting pro-freedom thinktanks financially, supporting pro-freedom candidates financially, writing letters to newspapers and to legislators, participating in demonstrations, volunteering your time and work to political or ideological campaigns."

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: exitus on March 31, 2003, 01:16:20 pm
Hi Joe:
. . .

"One quarter of the New Hampshire House are from Massachusetts! "

And WHAT does that mean? I grew up in New York! Doesn't make me a Democrat...

"Are those "liberty-minded" ex-Massachusetts people or are they liberal infiltrators?"

Or tax refugees...



Daniel Webster was a representative from Massachusetts and from New Hampshire . . .
http://www.danorr.com/webster/dartmouth_case.html (http://www.danorr.com/webster/dartmouth_case.html)
Title: NH should be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on March 31, 2003, 01:25:51 pm
"You all in New Hampshire seem to think that no one else in the country is even interested in the fight for liberty; or that such a fight is irrevelant, at best, outside of your borders."

Not irrelevant, just not nearly as successful outside our borders... :o)

"As for the presidential primary focusing attention in your direction, if libertarians do get control of the state, the media and political pundits will de-emphasize its importance as a state under the control of "extremists."  "

Thank you for aggreeing with me. :oD You are right that the media and pundits AND AMERICAN POPULATION will PAY ATTENTION to the results of NH's Presidential choice, like they do every election... That gives us the opportunity to show them up by making NH more successful than other states... In Montana or Wyoming, we would be totally ignored... We WANT the eyes of the country on the free state after we get there...

"given your previous comments, you feel that all New Hampshire needs is a large number of voters to back the few of you who have already set an agenda in place."

We haven't "set an agenda in place".... My comment was that we in the LPNH have held our own and made many in-roads with only several hundred people... With 20k, we rule the roost. :o)
Title: Re:NH should be picked...
Post by: thewaka on April 02, 2003, 11:21:48 pm
"But the largest house, so 201 members needed for the barest of majorities x 3089 = 620889 people to reach. More than the ENTIRE population of WY."

You don't need a majority to win... You only need one person, preferably a few, to convince a majority to vote for/against a bill.. The LPNH held inordinate power in the state house a few years back with only a few reps by not being tied to party labels,  and building coalitions.
Ergo, to get a state house, you don't need to hold a majority. You just need to get a few good people into seats. THAT is easiest to accomplish with smaller districts.

So why hasn't the NH LP gotten its members to move into a few districts so that you get those few libertarians you need to turn the tide? Essentially what you expect all 20,000 to do if NH is chosen. But it seems from what you said above you don't really need all of us if you don't need a majority in the state house of reps.

And what were the results of the "inordinate power" held by the LP reps? Why aren't they still there, wielding this power? Why weren't they able to get the redistricting done instead of it being sent to the courts, for example?

Quote
from libertarian40
I'm sorry - I cannot put this factor into a spreadsheet for you and one has to be on the ground to really understand what is happening here. The few NH residents who post in this forum probably cannot convince you of why we think this state is such fertile ground for the FSP - many posters in this forum seem to have already made up their minds to vote for Wyoming. So be it, and I really do hope they succeed in WY if it wins the FSP vote.

And many posters seem to have already made up their minds to vote for NH. Doesn't keep us from presenting evidence on behalf of WY (or ID, or AK, etc.). For me, the factor doesn't have to fit into the spreadsheet. Letters to the Editor in a newspaper can't be figured into a spreadsheet but I think that is a good way to get an idea of the feelings of the populace. If you really think NH is best, there has got to be some way for you to express this so that others can see the validity of your argument. Again, NH is a place I would love to live. But I don't see it as the best location to try for a free state. Not right now. Doesn't mean you can't show me evidence that I haven't considered and that I won't change my mind.

Diana
Title: NH should be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on April 02, 2003, 11:39:26 pm
Hi Diana:

You asked:

"If you really think NH is best, there has got to be some way for you to express this so that others can see the validity of your argument"

OK... Here you go.... (more at http://ww.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm)

 #1 in the NATION for lowest taxes as a percentage of gross personal income - (learn more)
 
 #1 best chance for clean elections (Read research at the Yahoo Political Analysis Group)
 
 #1 best representation NATIONWIDE with our 400-member House of Representatives (learn more)
 
 #1 best true citizen legislature NATIONWIDE with only $100/year pay for house and senate members (learn more)
 
 #1 best check NATIONWIDE on the power of the governor through our elected governors council (learn more)
 
  #1 best chance for leverage in the national debate by voting in our first-in-the-NATION primaries.
 
 #1 for lowest dependence on federal dollars (learn more)
 
 #1 for overall quality of life/livability (#3 in the NATION) (Morgan Quitno Press, 2002)
 
 #1 for the lowest percentage of government employees and the smallest state and local government sector (learn more)
 
 #1 in the NATION for the least overall crime (FBI, 2001)
 
 #1 for lowest government spending as a percent of gross state product (learn more)
 
 #1 for least restrictive helmet, seatbelt, and mandatory insurance laws (we do not have any!) (http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html and http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/state_laws/restrain.htm)
 
 #1 for the highest number of elected Libertarians - (learn more)
 
 #1 in the NATION for the highest density of LP members - (learn more)
 
 #1 for the highest percentage of high-tech jobs (#3 in the NATION) and #1 highest percentage of &#8220;knowledge&#8221; jobs - (learn more)
 
 #1 for the highest amount of venture capital invested in the state (#4 in the NATION) - (learn more)
 
 #1 for offering the most dynamic economy - (learn more)
 
 #1 healthiest state in the NATION, 2000 - (learn more)

New Hampshire also ranks as:

  #2, just behind Alaska, for highest median household income (2000 census)
 
 #2, just behind Vermont, for the least restrictive gun controls (learn more)
 
 #2, just behind Idaho, for highest projected job growth (learn more)


In short, we offer a strong foundation for FSP success and an existing environment in which FSP members will thrive  personally, economically, and politically. We are confident that New Hampshires high percentage of freedom-oriented citizens will welcome the FSP.  We hope that we can count on your support for both the Free State Project and New Hampshire. If we can answer any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Cordially,

JM
Title: Re:NH should be picked...
Post by: Robert H. on April 03, 2003, 01:26:29 am
"As for the presidential primary focusing attention in your direction, if libertarians do get control of the state, the media and political pundits will de-emphasize its importance as a state under the control of "extremists."  "

Thank you for aggreeing with me. :oD You are right that the media and pundits AND AMERICAN POPULATION will PAY ATTENTION to the results of NH's Presidential choice, like they do every election... That gives us the opportunity to show them up by making NH more successful than other states... In Montana or Wyoming, we would be totally ignored... We WANT the eyes of the country on the free state after we get there...

Do you really think that you're going to give the media and pundits no choice but to proclaim the success of libertarian New Hampshire to the nation and the world?

You're in for a mighty big disappointment.   :o

As I said, I believe that they'll de-emphasize New Hampshire's importance if they believe that it is controlled by what they view as an extremist movement (as they would with any of these states).  Either that, or, and here's another thought, they might just use that extremist image to sway public opinion against free staters.  How will New Hampshire residents react if the perceived legitimacy of their coveted national spotlight is threatened by what free staters are doing?

Perhaps by such phrases as: "Well, you do have to remember that Pat Buchanan once won the New Hampshire primary too, so go figure."   ;)

And remember that the country you think may be impressed by New Hampshire's libertarian reforms is the same fickle country that elected both Reagan and Clinton.  What do they now seem to think of the prosperity they enjoyed under Reagan?  Why, it was a "decade of greed."  And under Clinton?  Why, it was "the best economy in 50 years!"   ::)

The media and pundits will spin the situation however it best works to their advantage, as they always have.  The question for us is what do we stand to gain as opposed to what we stand to lose from their attention.  Personally, I have no real hope of any national recognition for our efforts anytime soon (if ever); the majority of this country's population is just too far removed from our ideological base.  I have much more faith in building regional solidarity, which requires us to be surrounded by friendly states that are likely to make common cause with us.  I also consider the media and political pundits to be enemies for the most part, and would rather be farther away from their centers of operation and focus.  The attention they direct at us is not likely to be positive.

No, I think I'd rather have Montana and Wyoming's obscurity.  The more the media and pundits leave us alone, the further we are liable to get, and all the faster as well.  They've already written those two states off as irrelevant anyway, which, given the statist predisposition of these so-called elites, should be seen as a compliment to the people of those states.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Michelle on April 03, 2003, 08:14:40 am
Quote
With NH having only 244 LP members in 2002

**Only** 244 members? I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I am fairly certain you are wrong and the numbers are quite a bit higher than that.

But, Joe, that is still irrelevant. However many dues paying members we have, we still have the highest density of members in the NATION. Plus, what makes you think that all the freedom-oriented activists in the state are LPNH members. There are many thousands of them and no, they are not all LPNH members, but we are actively building bridges and alliances in preparation for FSP coming to NH. We are reaching out to WAY MORE than the 2000 activists you ask for here. These activists will welcome FSP and will be friends of FSP. Don't believe me? Come to the June Escape to NH event and see for yourself. http://www.lpnh.org/escape.htm
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: craft_6 on April 03, 2003, 09:37:56 am
Quote
With NH having only 244 LP members in 2002
**Only** 244 members? I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I am fairly certain you are wrong and the numbers are quite a bit higher than that.

Yes, only 244 members (although that is the highest of the 10 states under consideration, and the highest percentage for any of the 50 states.)

This number came from the April 2003 edition of LP News, on page 15, and is official as of 12/31/02.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on April 03, 2003, 11:51:44 am
Can the "freedom-oriented activists" in New Hampshire prove to the FSP's Porcupines, their committment of support with a mere $25/yr for in-state activists compared to out-of-state activists committing to pay or forfeit thousands of dollars to move to a new home thousands of miles away??
We will be better equipped to answer that question after June 28th. A networking event for freedom-oriented groups of all stripes throught the state will take place on that day and it should give us a better idea of the number and commitment of activists in this state.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: varrin on April 03, 2003, 12:36:10 pm
As of Feb 28th, the LPHN has 238 paid members.  That's down from 241 in Januaray and 244 in December.

For a little more discussion on what kind of activity *I* think is going on in the LPNH, see my posts in Activist and Population Issues.  Here's an excerpt:

Also, regarding the number of activists in New Hampshire, let's look at the stats quickly.  The biggest LP vote getter in 2000 was the Governor candidate who got 6446 votes.  I figure there's between 10 to 1 and 50 to 1 members per vote or 129 to 644 LPNH members.  Out of that group there should be between 6 and 65 real LP activists in NH.  We could ask the LPNH leadership how many activists there really are but if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say there are about 40 give or take 10.  I do, however, know that there are 241 LPNH members which is exactly in my range.  In other words, the 241 LPNH members (and likley 25 to 50 activists) generated 6446 votes which is about right.  And I would predict that if they do not change size (i.e. don't get more activists and members), they won't get more than about 12,000 votes statewide in contested (i.e. both D and R candidates) races, and shouldn't get less than about 2500.

We know that my estimates about LP membership were correct.  Does anyone here who is active in the LPNH know what the real activist count is?  Is the 25-50 figure about right?  How many people are actually showing up for meetings, running for office, etc. etc.?

V-

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Michelle on April 03, 2003, 03:14:30 pm
Quote
As of Feb 28th, the LPHN has 238 paid members.  That's down from 241 in Januaray and 244 in December.

Well, not that it really matters, but I just checked and as of today LPNH has:

342 paid members

National obviously does not have up-to-date figures.

Of course, in addition to these 342 members we are actively building alliances and cooperation with other freedom-oriented groups and individuals, including (small l) libertarian legislators, gun owner groups, constitutional groups, taxpayer groups, etc.

Our goal is to have thousands of FSP supporters (LPNH members or not) by the time the first FSP members begin to move in.
Title: NH should be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on April 03, 2003, 05:31:08 pm
"National obviously does not have up-to-date figures"

National always seems to be way behind the times....

Perhaps they are only counting national LP members from NH? They may not be including LPNH members who are not LP members. Since we broke off UMP, those two numbers are different....

JM
Title: Re:NH should be picked...
Post by: George Reich on April 03, 2003, 07:17:22 pm
Perhaps they are only counting national LP members from NH? They may not be including LPNH members who are not LP members. Since we broke off UMP, those two numbers are different....

I'll bet that's what happened. I joined the LPNH and did not bother to join national. There must be others like me.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Michelle on April 03, 2003, 09:04:42 pm
Quote
Why not LPNH members since you broke off UMP? What's $25 since the LPNH gets it all now? (

Sure - we'd love to have new members. Please join! We can use all the members and all the dues and all the help we can get. That wasn't my point. There are many people that, for whatever reason, choose not to join a political party, or choose to use a different political label. That doesn't mean we don't have common ground, though, and that we can't work together to achieve common goals. There are freedom-loving people in all sorts of places, not just the LP.

Quote
You do realize that if the FSP chooses New Hampshire, its 20,000 will take over you NHLP.  It won't be your party anymore. It will be ours.

Maybe so. But you certainly make it sound hostile. I really hope that wherever they go, FSP members recognize that they will go much farther and see more success if they work with the existing citizens rather than trying to "take over" anything. We, in LPNH, are trying to build on an existing strong foundation to give FSP members a head start when they come.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on April 03, 2003, 09:58:16 pm
Per Michelle:
Quote
Our goal is to have thousands of FSP supporters (LPNH members or not) by the time the first FSP members begin to move in.
Why not LPNH members since you broke off UMP? What's $25 since the LPNH gets it all now? (or am I mistaken).

Per libertarian40:
Quote
We will be better equipped to answer that question after June 28th.
The rest of that question from Joe was :
Quote
Can you at least give the FSP a ten percent match? About 2,000 dues-paying members...  before the FSP votes on a state?
The FSP won't have 5,000 members by then, so you have three months. ;)
2,000 more members would put both the FSP and the NHLP over the top for the vote. :)

P.S.
You do realize that if the FSP chooses New Hampshire, its 20,000 will take over you NHLP.  It won't be your party anymore. It will be ours. :P
Maybe you should recruit 20,000 of your own people.


Huh? If there was some point to this post, I missed it.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Zxcv on April 04, 2003, 12:53:31 pm
Quote
#1 in the NATION for lowest taxes as a percentage of gross personal income - (learn more)
 
#1 best chance for clean elections (Read research at the Yahoo Political Analysis Group)
True. Sure wish we had that report so we could have a chance to refute if needed...

Quote
 
#1 best representation NATIONWIDE with our 400-member House of Representatives (learn more)
Actually kind of a mixed bag, as Joe has pointed out. But it is probably on the good end of our spectrum.
 
Quote
#1 best true citizen legislature NATIONWIDE with only $100/year pay for house and senate members (learn more)
 
#1 best check NATIONWIDE on the power of the governor through our elected governors council (learn more)
Both good deals, as far as I can tell.
 
Quote
 #1 best chance for leverage in the national debate by voting in our first-in-the-NATION primaries.
Hmmm, has that translated into actually helping keep bozos out of office?  ::)
 
Quote
#1 for lowest dependence on federal dollars (learn more)
True, and to be commended, but this has partly to do with the fact wages are higher (and cost of living, to go along with it), and thus New Hampshirites get dinged by the "progressive" fed income tax more. The more you get dinged, the less "dependent" you are. But being dinged by taxes is not such a good thing...  :P
 
Quote
#1 for overall quality of life/livability (#3 in the NATION) (Morgan Quitno Press, 2002)
Let's not forget this index contains some pretty anti-libertarian items, so is not to be trusted that much.
 
Quote
#1 for the lowest percentage of government employees and the smallest state and local government sector (learn more)
 
But on the high end for number of government employees, due to the high population. Number is more important than percentage, that's clear.

Quote
#1 in the NATION for the least overall crime (FBI, 2001)
 
OK, but not so important to us.

Quote
#1 for lowest government spending as a percent of gross state product (learn more)
Very commendable.
 
Quote
#1 for least restrictive helmet, seatbelt, and mandatory insurance laws (we do not have any!) (http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html and http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/state_laws/restrain.htm)
Indicator variables. NH does well on some of them (the ones you picked...)
 
Quote
#1 for the highest number of elected Libertarians - (learn more)
 
#1 in the NATION for the highest density of LP members - (learn more)
 
I suppose this is a positive.   ;)  How many in the legislature?

Quote

#1 for the highest percentage of high-tech jobs (#3 in the NATION) and #1 highest percentage of “knowledge” jobs - (learn more)
Maybe this is good, but hard to say how it helps freedom.
 
Quote
#1 for the highest amount of venture capital invested in the state (#4 in the NATION) - (learn more)
Hmmm, is this a big item for us? Maybe a good indicator variable.
 
Quote
#1 for offering the most dynamic economy - (learn more)
Great if you want jobs for FSPers, bad if you don't want jobs for statists, and for demonstrating to other states how freedom helps economies.
 
Quote
#1 healthiest state in the NATION, 2000 - (learn more)
Seems kinda irrelevant WRT freedom.

James, seems you left out a few of the bad indicators.  ;)
Title: NH should be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on April 04, 2003, 04:09:07 pm
Hi ZXCV:

First, I just figured out where the letters for your name came from - pretty qwert ! ;o)

I actually got the data from http://ww.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm . You can go there to get the extra info which was only in text on the message.

I find it is the most empirical data I have found on any of the states - if there are similar lists for other states, I would love to see them! (no, REALLY!)  8)

And I don't know about you, but I need a job!  :-\ (Actually, I may be in business for myself for real soon!)

The seat belt/insurance/income tax/sales tax thing WAS our choice of things to talk about, but I am totally willing to see similar lists from other states....

Hope you enjoy the page... And don't forget to view my site as well!

JM

Title: Re:NH should be picked...
Post by: exitus on April 04, 2003, 04:25:30 pm
Hi ZXCV:


I find it is the most empirical data I have found on any of the states - if there are similar lists for other states, I would love to see them! (no, REALLY!)  8)


The seat belt/insurance/income tax/sales tax thing WAS your choice of things to talk about, but I am totally willing to see similar lists from other states....



Please go to post #55, found on the link to this thread:
Idaho Free State (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=943;start=45)
This was my rough draft of some good points on Idaho, as brought up in various threads up to that point.  It is in serious need of improvents and some positive updates.  Since I just volunteered to do Idaho report #2, I guess I will need to resume the task again. . .



Go read #46 too, kind of lengthy, but it has a few good points.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on April 04, 2003, 07:17:10 pm
Alright.... That's IT! How we solve this voting issue thing...

A potato gun war!

But if I CATCH Idaho supplying potatos to Wyoming in the conflict, there will be "severe consequences"....  :-* Sorry, couldn't resist.... Too much war coverage....  ;)

Actually, THAT is the type of info I like! Idaho just went up several notches in my book... Thank you.

Do you think russets or red potatos make better ammo?

rflmao....
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Zxcv on April 06, 2003, 11:05:39 am
Geez, guys, proponents of every state (except ME  ::) )could come up interminable lists of "firsts" for their state. That's why we have "the big spreadsheet"!

Although it is interesting to read these lists, too...

James, I'll send you a copy of it, you can play with it and see what you think. Please read the directions on the first page, it is different from the standard FSP sheet.
Title: NH should be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on April 06, 2003, 11:37:12 pm
"The following New Hampshire legislation was passed by the NH legislature and signed by the governor in 2002. "

A) If that's the worst thing you can find about NH, we are doing pretty good. :oD

B) That was out OLD Governor.... Our new one is shrinking spending and taxes... :o)

JM
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on April 11, 2003, 09:55:44 pm
Hostile or not, even a tenth of the 20,000 will be enough to overwhelm your few hundred. New Hampshire's present Libertarians will no longer run the NHLP. The Porcupines will. Their party organization will nominate who they wish. Can you add enough native New Hampshire members to prevent that?

Actually, if the porcupines were smart they would take over the NH GOP instead. ;)  But as I have stated before on this forum, please come here and TAKE OVER! I'm all for it....
Title: NH should be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on April 12, 2003, 01:31:27 pm
"It has too many people (1.3 million by 2010). (local support?)"

I've talked before about why I thnk population is overblown... If 2 out of 3 voted to bring in tax-killer Benson for Governor (who made NO secret about wanting to shrink Government), and independents outnumber Democrats, then there is, IMNSHO, more than enough local support to overcome the larger population.

"It has too few state senators (but it has lots of reps)"

HHhmmmm... And some people say the more people are in office, the more spending there is... Would y'all make up your minds?  ;)

"It's too close to the People's Republic of Boston. (more refugees)"

Doesn't really mean anything that I can see... Except that we are likely to have the last of the small-Government types run away from Mass to help us in NH... Socialists don't want to live in a free society any more than we want to live in a socialist society...
You know, you would be amazed... Even the landscape itself changes when you hit Mass.... The grass is brown, all lot of Mass smells bad, etc.

"New Hampshirites don't cotton to non-New Englanders (how about southerners & westerners?)"

Sorry... Don't know that term... What do you mean cotton?

"Too many teachers, especially NEA and unionized. (correctable)"

Agreed.

"Not a "Right to Work" state. (correctable)"

That's funny... That just came up a bit back in NH... I don't think any of us really had time to deal with it, but on my quick glance it looked like approving it would be getting Government more involved in the private sector, maybe not! Could you fill us in a bit more on what it really means?

"Too restrictive hunting regulations. (correctable)"

Hmmm... Never heard a hunter say that.  ;D But do you have a certain comparision of which you speak?

"It's not self-sufficent in energy or food (it's vulnerable but it could welcome more nuclear and it's warm enough for Victory Gardens)"

Actually, that is how NH got it's name.... Our soil is poor, and could grow nothing but hemp for the most part, just like HEMPshire in England... Wait a minute! I know how we can make some money... lol...
Actually, it can be done on smaller scales, my gf and I have a big garden at our house, and eat a lot out of it spring-fall.
But we ARE self-sufficent in guns.... Got a BIG couple o' factories...

No, as long as you are stating facts, and not hyperbole, I will not accuse you of NH bashing. Might DISAGREE with you, but that is something different.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have campaigning to do... :)

JM
Title: Re:NH should be picked...
Post by: Dalamar49 on April 12, 2003, 06:25:18 pm

"It's too close to the People's Republic of Boston. (more refugees)"

Doesn't really mean anything that I can see... Except that we are likely to have the last of the small-Government types run away from Mass to help us in NH... Socialists don't want to live in a free society any more than we want to live in a socialist society...
You know, you would be amazed... Even the landscape itself changes when you hit Mass.... The grass is brown, all lot of Mass smells bad, etc.


I would disagree that socialists would refuse to move to a free state (New Hampshire). Here in Nevada, a reasonably free state, we've been overrun by Californian migrants who come here to avoid high taxes in California, but it hasn't taken them long to start complainging about our lack of social programs and taxes. Now they want to increase both!

If NH becomes attractive to people on Boston the same thing will probably happen. The statists are never happy enough to leave things the way they are.
Title: Re:NH should be picked...
Post by: stpeter on April 12, 2003, 08:52:48 pm
"It has too many people (1.3 million by 2010). (local support?)"

I've talked before about why I thnk population is overblown... If 2 out of 3 voted to bring in tax-killer Benson for Governor (who made NO secret about wanting to shrink Government), and independents outnumber Democrats, then there is, IMNSHO, more than enough local support to overcome the larger population.

Hey, I'm happy to see that NH voters said no to an income tax, but that doesn't mean the population issue is overblown. I'm still waiting for someone to make the argument that NH is at least twice as good as Wyoming as a potential Free State (which it would have to be to make up for the population differential).

"New Hampshirites don't cotton to non-New Englanders (how about southerners & westerners?)"

Sorry... Don't know that term... What do you mean cotton?
C'mon, you know what that means. I'm from your neighbor to the north and east (Maine) and I know first-hand (and from statistics posted on the forums here) that folks from outside New England are simply not welcome in ME, NH, and VT (just as I was not welcome when I moved to Georgia for a spell -- and as I was not welcome when my family moved to Maine from NY when I was a kid). Most migrants to NH are from other New England states, and *very* few are from other parts of the country. Do you really think that FSP members from places like South Carolina or Texas would want to move to NH, or that they would be welcome (especially in large numbers)? From what I've seen in Colorado (lived here for the last 4 years), folks out west are much more welcoming to people all over the country than those in the east (no north-south divide out here). From what I know, WY, MT, and ID are pretty similar to CO in this regard. Based on personal experience, I think this is a much more important issue than people are willing to admit.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Kelton Baker on April 12, 2003, 11:03:40 pm
"It has too many people (1.3 million by 2010). (local support?)"

I've talked before about why I thnk population is overblown... If 2 out of 3 voted to bring in tax-killer Benson for Governor (who made NO secret about wanting to shrink Government), and independents outnumber Democrats, then there is, IMNSHO, more than enough local support to overcome the larger population.

This issue of population can be overblown, yes, it is true, if there were a country the size of India or even China with a population fully ready and desiring freedom,  all it would take would be a few activists motivating the populace and 'leavening the lump' to make it happen quick.
 
What I see in New Hampshire however, is probably several thousand people who would readily welcome full-blown libertarian freedom, several hundred thousand more who desire a greater measure of freedom, 'medium-government' folks who might convert; and then another several hundred thousand willing to vote-in the likes of Bill Clinton.  So it's not so much the lack of freedom-desiring individuals in New Hampshire, it's how much 20,000, even 40,000 activists are out-numbered!
But, don't get me wrong, New Hampshire is certainly worth the fight, its hundreds of times better than the good fight against statism here in California, but considering the degree to which we want change brough about, beyond just a tax-break, I just like the statistical odds in Wyoming better.  


"It's too close to the People's Republic of Boston. (more refugees)"

 . . .
You know, you would be amazed...

Being so close to Boston is not as scary as people are making it out to be., probably not too much worse than being so close to Denver in Cheyenne, WY.  The pendulum-swing towards statism in Mass. is starting to reach an apex and swing the other way a bit recently.  Gov. Mit Romney is no libertarian, but he seems to be a respectable man in many regards, he ran on a campaign that had a mild small-government feel to it, and the issue of privacy was a popular one in Mass. a few years back.



Quote
"New Hampshirites don't cotton to non-New Englanders (how about southerners & westerners?)"
C'mon, you know what that means. I'm from your neighbor to the north and east (Maine) and I know first-hand (and from statistics posted on the forums here) that folks from outside New England are simply not welcome in ME, NH, and VT (just as I was not welcome when I moved to Georgia for a spell -- and as I was not welcome when my family moved to Maine from NY when I was a kid). Most migrants to NH are from other New England states, and *very* few are from other parts of the country. Do you really think that FSP members from places like South Carolina or Texas would want to move to NH, or that they would be welcome (especially in large numbers)? From what I've seen in Colorado (lived here for the last 4 years), folks out west are much more welcoming to people all over the country than those in the east (no north-south divide out here). From what I know, WY, MT, and ID are pretty similar to CO in this regard. Based on personal experience, I think this is a much more important issue than people are willing to admit.
Quote

Here's a quote over on the New Hampshire thread that has been largely ignored:

I have recently moved to New Hampshire, the Granite State, from the People's Republic of California.  The bottom line is that,
compared to Californians, the people in New Hampshire are some of the luckiest people in the world.  This state is simply glorious in its people, its natural resources, and its spirit.  Here are the most obvious good things I've found:
 
[1.2.3. . . .]

      9.   The crime rate is next to zero, as far as I can see.  My neighbor leaves his house unlocked when he goes out of town, so we can come in and let his dog out.  I have even left the key in my car (unlocked) a couple of times.  It was not easy.  Boy, old habits die hard.  When we moved in, I did not spend the usual $$$ to change the house locks to my usual high-tech system this time.  It didn't seem worth it.  The dog and the guns are the security system this time.  I'd love to claim that the reason for the low crime rate in NH is because so many honest citizens are armed, and it may well be.  The low crime rate explanation is clouded, however, by the fact that there is not much "diversity" in this state.  People are afraid to talk about it, but to my mind, that's the real reason.  Except for some enclaves of French and Hispanics, almost everybody speaks English. (I did hear some Russian in the store the other day.)  The old-fashioned colonial culture of honor, reliability, honesty, polity, and hard work still thrives in small towns here, bringing people together to watch out for one another.  Small town life also forces people to behave, because one's reputation is a precious asset where there is no anonymity. . . .

  . . .

 
While reading this post recently, this post really jumped-out at me.  I am feeling a little extra- sensitive after spending some time trying to discourage a certain group from joining the FSP over at a another website (you can read about it here: Links to non-FSP forums discussing FSP
 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=804;start=30;boardseen=1))
Many times people here have pointed to Idaho as being a bad candidate because of its reputation for having a few of those types, and something which Idaho people are already trying very hard to overcome. Idaho Battles Image as Haven for Hate (http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1998/07/20/p4s1.htm)) But the latest census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/33000.html) data shows that Idaho is much more racially diverse than our candidate Northeastern states.

I find both encouragement and concern in these articles (seems to be a leftist bias in them about the negative points)  :
Educator wages war on racism in N.H. (http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/19990115/NH_001.htm)
Subtle Racism Still Persists in New Hampshire (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/mlk990115.html)

Obviously, this is a big issue, and I don't want to form an attack on NH, this is actually a call to welcome more insight into a state and a people I have really come to respect.  Is this issue of not "cottoning" to outsiders going to be a tough hurdle to overcome in some areas? Is it actually more of a New England sort of provincialism?

I think Joe raises a valid point with that old colloquial word about New Englanders not 'cottoning'.  While the LP and others are welcoming us with open arms, is it going to be all that much of a welcome with others?  It's a good question for any state, really, they all have their own little quirks.

1491
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Kelton Baker on April 13, 2003, 09:53:06 pm
""Not a "Right to Work" state. (correctable)"

That's funny... That just came up a bit back in NH... I don't think any of us really had time to deal with it, but on my quick glance it looked like approving it would be getting Government more involved in the private sector, maybe not! Could you fill us in a bit more on what it really means?

jgmaynard asks a very good question here, and the fact is that yes, Right-to-Work laws are laws that get the government involved in the private sector.  However, understand one thing, they are a defensive measure to protect the rights taken away by previous government interference.
Let me explain,
but first read this quote from www.businesslaw.gov home page:
"Right to Work states secure the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union, and makes it illegal for unions to require membership as a condition of employment. In non-Right to Work states, employees may be required to join unions in order to retain employment at some companies regardless of opposing political views or religious beliefs. If unions have or are forming in your business, find out what the law is in your state."

In a truly libertarian society, government would not get involved in issues of unions, but current federal laws prohibit employers from taking certain defensive measures like firing their workforce for joining a union.  To counter-act the extreme power that has been handed to unions by the federal government to control the workplace, states enacted right-to-work laws.

To give you an idea of what they do, my father works for a unionized company, Greyhound Lines, unionized by the Amalgamated Transit Union, a division of AFL-CIO.  He has decided to politely opt-out of union membership as a sign of protest, even though he supports unions, is a die-hard voting Democrat, who votes for the Democrats only because they support union labor and the "working man".  So why, then does he not own-up to membership in the union?  Well, for one thing, it saves him over $200/ month, but for another thing, his stated reason is that he is actually angry at the union for not taking a more active stance against the company and he tells his union foreman that he will re-join the union as soon as the union starts standing-up to the company.  

Once, when talking with him about it, he said that he regularly talks with drivers who want to move to a right-to-work state so they can get out of having to pay dues-- though they say so half- jokingly because there is a strong "brotherhood" about not 'dissing' your union brothers-- and everyone is cautious to not upset the proclaimed marxists within the company who uphold unions with religious fervor!
1512
Title: Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: Rearden on April 14, 2003, 01:44:29 am
In the last two years, NH has added near four Republicans for every Democrat.  Also note the fact that 36.8% of NH voters are independents -- over a third.  This is a sign of unhappiness with the major parties and a huge, election-swaying block that demands to be courted for support.  


From http://www.politicsnh.com/scala/10-28.shtml

Let?s take a look at the numbers. The political contours of a state are shaped by its citizens? party affiliations.  What do the latest voter registration figures tell us?

Table 1: State voter registration

 
                            September 02       2001 (after list purge)    Net gain
REPUBLICANS     245,791 (37.3%)    233,363 (36.9%)            12,428
UNDECLARED     242,028 (36.8%)    232,805 (36.8%)             9,223
DEMOCRATS       170,405 (25.9%)    167,062 (26.4%)             3,343

These numbers tell us that Shaheen is climbing uphill with the wind in her face. Since 2001, the Republicans have added  nearly four voters for every one the Democrats have gained.  Democrats dismissed the fact that in September, more than twice as many voters turned out for the GOP primary than for  their own contest, pointing out the relative lack of competitive races in their primary. Coupled with voter registration trends,  though, the overall momentum among the New Hampshire electorate appears to be on the side of the Republicans this season.
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: Zxcv on April 14, 2003, 10:41:45 am
I don't know if I buy the premise, that voting R is an indicator of not going socialist! Besides, we are more concerned about statists, and R's have been statist as much (or about as much) as D's.

This is an old article, I assume Shaheen lost? A good thing. Now NH has as Senator the guy who delivered NH to George Bush I via election fraud.  ::)

I vaguely remember some thread here that was looking at longer-term trends for things like voter registration and so forth. Didn't they indicate some bad trend going on?

As Scala noted in his current article:
http://www.politicsnh.com/scala/
Quote
This is a state, after all, that Jeanne Shaheen carried three times, Bill Clinton carried twice, and Al Gore almost carried once. Just five years ago, the Democrats had both the governor’s chair and control of the State Senate.

I do like to see a voter revolt when politicians suggest adding a tax, though, and NH voters sure did that, last election.
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: George Reich on April 14, 2003, 11:56:38 am
I don't know if I buy the premise, that voting R is an indicator of not going socialist! Besides, we are more concerned about statists, and R's have been statist as much (or about as much) as D's.

This is an old article, I assume Shaheen lost? A good thing. Now NH has as Senator the guy who delivered NH to George Bush I via election fraud.  

Different Sununu.  :)

But you make a good point; Republicans are not necessarily any less statist (or corrupt) than Democrats. In NH, though, the "R" party is the one seen as in favor of lower taxes and smaller government. And it undoubtedly won the sympathy (and votes) of the huge independent block in 2002.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Zxcv on April 15, 2003, 10:48:09 am
Yes that's right, exitus. Anyone who takes a few minutes to look into the issue will realize that "right to work" laws are strong pro-freedom measures, and also are states rights measures. At least in this one significant area the states have stood up to the feds.

What is puzzling me about NH, is the fact they have managed to remain so free, after they have handed such powerful government tools to their unions and especially teachers unions, which are invariably statist in the worst possible way. I guess the average New Hampshirite must have a lot of resistance to government meddling, but think how things could improve by removing or not giving these union advantages in the first place, as is the case in Wyoming.

Quote
"It's too close to the People's Republic of Boston. (more refugees)"

Doesn't really mean anything that I can see... Except that we are likely to have the last of the small-Government types run away from Mass to help us in NH... Socialists don't want to live in a free society any more than we want to live in a socialist society...
Dalamar is right on target with this. NH fans try to downplay this factor but it is a huge problem for NH (perhaps even worse than the large population issue). Socialists may not want to live in a free society, but they want to live! If their rotten economies have expelled them because the jobs are moving to NH (a place more business-friendly), then they will follow those jobs. Confirming Dalamar's impressions is a post I put up earlier about a piece by Vin Suprynowicz:
Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain? (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1501)

Perhaps NH is more able to resist the tax hikes that are infecting Nevada, but the rest of the statist agenda? I wonder...

Quote
You know, you would be amazed... Even the landscape itself changes when you hit Mass.... The grass is brown, all lot of Mass smells bad, etc.
That will draw the statists to NH, too...

At least Idaho has that racist reputation to deter some statists from moving there. As exitus notes, NH probably is even more racist, but does not have the statist-barrier that a bad reputation would provide. The worst of both worlds...

Interesting comment in that article exitus posted:
Quote
The intersection of race and schools in New Hampshire is a topic Dr. Hammer has been researching since 1981 when she transferred to the University of New Hampshire as an undergraduate sociology major.

A native of Wyoming, she has lived for the past five years on Candia Road in Chester with her husband, UNH philosophy professor R. Valentine Dusek.

She said she was and still is shocked to find people in New Hampshire less tolerant of those of other races than people in her home state.
Of course, that is anecdotal, and her idea about teaching "diversity" in government schools is just silly. But it's still something to chew on...

exitus, I don't know if I think it's a bad thing that NH is the only state not to have an MLK day, given that MLK was a big socialist (I've heard). Maybe New Hampshirites ought to go instead for a Frederick Douglass day?   ;)

"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
-- Frederick Douglass,  Aug. 4, 1857

Come on, you LPNHers, there's an issue you can push in the legislature that will get you some publicity!   ;D
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Hank on April 15, 2003, 11:03:22 am
HEY NEW HAMPSHIRE!
ARE YOU CELEBRATING PATRIOTS DAY? (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=7;action=display;threadid=1584)
(click the link above) ;)
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Dave Mincin on April 18, 2003, 09:35:38 pm
Ouch Joe....Boy that is a bit of a  stretch...Guess you know more that the rest of us, about the minds and souls of the people :)

Just curious?  How much time have you spent in Boston or Wyoming lately?
Title: NH should be picked...
Post by: jgmaynard on April 19, 2003, 10:34:01 am
You seem to be lumping in NH with Boston.... We are a MILLION miles apart politically... That is like lumping in Seattle into Wyoming... It makes no sense! lol...
That is why Money magazine has NH listed as having the second lowest tax burden in the nation (behind Alaska)... No sales tax, no income tax, no mandatory insurance, no helmet law, etc etc.... ALL of which are present in Mass...

JM
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Dave Mincin on April 20, 2003, 10:54:39 am
Joe, I'm hopeful you were not offended by my statement, I can assure you none was intended.

You know Joe I was born and raised in probably the most statist city in this country, Pittsburgh, PA, moved and lived in small town northwestern Pa  most of my life and  moved back to the city a couple years ago.  Hell have never even elected a republician to city council in my lifetime!

Over the last few months I have pounded a lot of flesh, talked to a lot of people, teachers, workers, small business people, those raising a family, and you know nearly all of them agreed with me about the government stealing our personal freedom.  Found most of them agreed with nearly everything I had to say.  They just felt that it was so hopeless and felt they had no power to do anything about it.  Are these the raging statist we are so worried about?

How many people actually vote? Fifty-sixty percent?  Wonder why?  Isn't it mostly about voting for the lesser of two evils?  We have such an incredible opportunity to give the people a real choice, and I trust in the people.  Can't shake the idea that bottom line the FSP is about our faith in  people and not the government.

Sure I favor NH, and it is because of what I see happening there, activity involvement, people getting together, running for election, networking, and helping pave the way to make our arrivial less difficult.

But I also am hopeful the the folks in MT conference is a roaring sucess, and they recruit many new member, because Joe if that happens we all win.

I welcome any positive news from any of the states about people getting together and promoting FSP and the cause of freedom, and I welcome working with you one day in NH :)
























Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Zack Bass on April 20, 2003, 03:36:28 pm

Even I am a raving statist councilman compared to what I should be.


See, there is still a libertarian inside there.  I can't blame you for feeling frustrated by your constituents.

Quote

But if I again drove too hard with the repeals that I want, I'd be replaced by even more statist authoritarians. Yet I too am getting tired and frustrated. I'm up for re-election or perhaps a run for mayor this fall. I've a great temptation to hang it up and tend to my own business.


Why not become mayor, accept that you might make yourself a one-term candidate, and take every opportunity to rail publicly against the Statism?  That would do far more good than compromising in order to loosen a couple of Regulations here and there.
Or simply start doing that NOW, accepting that they might do that which has been your greatest nightmare, refuse to re-elect you?  You might be surprised... and it's no worse than hanging it up.

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Dave Mincin on April 20, 2003, 05:47:41 pm
Joe, perhaps we all have a lot to learn about freedom, but I so do  believe we have taken the first few steps and as we walk down that  winding road we will all learn more.

We may continue to disagree on many things, but I am certain that we are more allies than foes, and am heartened that the tone of our discourse has begun to take a more gentle tone.  

Spent give or take 25 years in the Sharpsville area, a bit south and west of DuBois, but am framiliar with that area did some fishing and camping in that area, and had a number of friends that had cabins up that way.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on April 20, 2003, 06:47:22 pm
What is puzzling me about NH, is the fact they have managed to remain so free

NH can thank its founding fathers for its relative freedom to this day. They gave NH an excellent constitution.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Zxcv on April 20, 2003, 11:20:55 pm
I can't believe that's it. The Founders also gave the US a good constitution, now shredded.

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."
-- Judge Learned Hand

It must just be tradition there. Like the license plates, and not having an MKL day.

But that still doesn't explain why they handed the statists such powerful tools. Why would they do that? Possibly because NH was and still is pretty industrialized, and unions must have had a lot of influence at their peak so many years ago.

You guys need to make it a Right to Work state, and take away all the privileges the NEA now has.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Zack Bass on April 21, 2003, 07:41:51 am

You guys need to make it a Right to Work state, and take away all the privileges the NEA now has.


Take away the NEA privileges, definitely.
But NO RIGHT-TO-WORK LAW!!!

This is the issue that made me realize I was a libertarian, 30-odd years ago.
I live in a right-to-work State, and my knowledge of the abuses of certain unions made me think that was a good idea.
Then one day I was reading an article by a libertarian, and it pointed out that a Right-to-Work Law infringes on the right of a group of workers and an employer to contract freely.  If the employer AGREES to hire only Union workers, for whatever concessions he feels are worthwhile, then that ought to be his right, and theirs.

In two brief sentences, a libertarian argument had shown me I was wrong.  That was pretty impressive.  I began looking at other issues from a libertarian viewpoint, and almost all of them made a lot more sense.

I understand exactly why you want a Right-to-Work Law; but look at it a little more closely.

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on April 21, 2003, 07:50:36 am
I can't believe that's it. The Founders also gave the US a good constitution, now shredded.

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."
-- Judge Learned Hand

It must just be tradition there. Like the license plates, and not having an MKL day.

Vermont and Maine are similar to NH culturally, geographically, and demographically. But they have not had the benefit of a 400-member citizen legislature.

Quote
But that still doesn't explain why they handed the statists such powerful tools. Why would they do that? Possibly because NH was and still is pretty industrialized, and unions must have had a lot of influence at their peak so many years ago.

You guys need to make it a Right to Work state, and take away all the privileges the NEA now has.

I understand why you like right-to-work laws (and I am sympathetic to the idea of them, too), but they are not consistent with a libertarian philosophy.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Dave Mincin on April 21, 2003, 06:18:32 pm
Would agree that the size and salary of the NH legislation has help her maintain a spirit of freedom, discouraging the career politician.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Zack Bass on April 22, 2003, 01:38:08 am

Would agree that the size and salary of the NH legislation has help her maintain a spirit of freedom, discouraging the career politician.


Probably more to do with the decency of the inhabitants.
Typically, across the world, low pay for public "servants" merely increases the requirement for baksheesh.  In the days before the fall if the Shah, you couldn't get a Driver's License without tipping the examiner.

My wife just came back from a trip to the Philippines.  She put an American ten-dollar bill inside her passport.  The guy didn't even look at her luggage at all, just grabbed the money and waved her on in.
Her sister and her family were traveling with her.  She said, "Why did you give him money?  We didn't have to pay at all."  But she also had to wait while they poked around in all her stuff.

Filipino policemen are paid almost nothing.  They make up parking and traffic rules you won't find written down in the books.  But you are allowed to ask them if they could maybe expedite the paperwork and you could reimburse them for their trouble.  The ticket disappears for a few Pesos (a Peso is worth about 2 cents these days).

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: George Reich on April 22, 2003, 06:28:03 am
But it is difficult to pay off enough of 400 legislators to vote the way you want. There have to be enough corrupt ones and you need a lot of money.
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Zack Bass on April 22, 2003, 07:12:17 am
But it is difficult to pay off enough of 400 legislators to vote the way you want. There have to be enough corrupt ones and you need a lot of money.

That's what lobbyists are for.

You may be right, but I still think it's due to the decency or at least the mindset of the officials themselves.  400 Filipinos would have no trouble selling influence.

Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Zxcv on April 22, 2003, 03:40:37 pm
Quote
Then one day I was reading an article by a libertarian, and it pointed out that a Right-to-Work Law infringes on the right of a group of workers and an employer to contract freely.  If the employer AGREES to hire only Union workers, for whatever concessions he feels are worthwhile, then that ought to be his right, and theirs.

Very interesting, Zack.

Tell you what. Find a state that allows employers to fire without difficulty, any worker who engages in union organization, and you'll have found a state where your theoretical argument holds water. Businesses have pushed right-to-work laws, acting in self-defense of union-sponsored government thuggery. Thus right-to-work laws do conform to libertarian ideas. If the unions had not initiated force, there would be no right to work laws because there would be no need for them.

Oh, by the way, I don't believe you'll find such a state; anyway, this union initiation of force occurred at both the state and federal level. Until the feds revoke such laws, and employers can again fire anyone they want for any reason they want, the only thing that makes sense is for states to enact right-to-work laws.

And really, have you ever heard of an employer that wants a union? Try to come back to earth, Zack.  ::)
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Zack Bass on April 22, 2003, 03:56:32 pm
Quote
Then one day I was reading an article by a libertarian, and it pointed out that a Right-to-Work Law infringes on the right of a group of workers and an employer to contract freely.  If the employer AGREES to hire only Union workers, for whatever concessions he feels are worthwhile, then that ought to be his right, and theirs.

Tell you what. Find a state that allows employers to fire without difficulty, any worker who engages in union organization, and you'll have found a state where your theoretical argument holds water. Businesses have pushed right-to-work laws, acting in self-defense of union-sponsored government thuggery. Thus right-to-work laws do conform to libertarian ideas. If the unions had not initiated force, there would be no right to work laws because there would be no need for them.

Oh, by the way, I don't believe you'll find such a state; anyway, this union initiation of force occurred at both the state and federal level. Until the feds revoke such laws, and employers can again fire anyone they want for any reason they want, the only thing that makes sense is for states to enact right-to-work laws.


You are absolutely right.  I couldn't agree more.
Sorry if I gave another impression.  I was referring to Principle; what is proper in a libertarian society.
As self-defense, these Laws are justified.
But it reminds me of the hippies of my day who decided that all cops are pigs, because they were enforcing immoral Laws, and proceeded to the conclusion that there ought to be all sorts of Protections against the powers of the Police.  The cops were not the problem, and taking away their power to enforce the Laws is not the proper solution - although it's what we're reduced to these days, since we can't get rid of the evil Laws.
In a libertarian society, you can expect a Cop to be the friend of the law-abiding citizen, and the Law to be just.  In that situation, you want him to have plenty of power to enforce the Law.

Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: George Reich on April 29, 2003, 02:15:22 pm
I have been looking at the voting records of state representatives in New Hampshire. Many of the reps with the most libertarian voting records so far in the current session represent districts in the rapidly growing southern tier of the state.

Representatives Henry McElroy (R, Nashua), and Lars Christiansen (R, Hudson) come to mind. Interestingly, both of these men have made positive comments about the Free State Project.

So much for the idea that immigration from Massachusetts is somehow making NH more socialist.  ::)

Or maybe all the socialists are simply staying home on election day.  :D
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: freedomroad on April 29, 2003, 08:12:33 pm
What is socialism?

Is it Bill Clinton or Al Gore?

NH voted for Bill Clinton twice.

NH was less than 20,000 votes from helping to elect Al Gore.

Ralph Nader is popular in NH.

Are these men socialist?  Are people that vote for them socialist?

I guess it depends how you define socialist.

Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: George Reich on April 29, 2003, 08:32:39 pm
What is socialism?

Is it Bill Clinton or Al Gore?

NH voted for Bill Clinton twice.

NH was less than 20,000 votes from helping to elect Al Gore.

Ralph Nader is popular in NH.

Are these men socialist?  Are people that vote for them socialist?

I guess it depends how you define socialist.

Why don't you election analyzers ever report on the 2002 election in NH?
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: freedomroad on April 29, 2003, 09:42:12 pm
What is socialism?

Is it Bill Clinton or Al Gore?

NH voted for Bill Clinton twice.

NH was less than 20,000 votes from helping to elect Al Gore.

Ralph Nader is popular in NH.

Are these men socialist?  Are people that vote for them socialist?

I guess it depends how you define socialist.

Why don't you election analyzers ever report on the 2002 election in NH?

I have written about it.  The thing is, I was talking about Major elections where the most powerful man in the world is being elected.  NH seems to like people that run-on Big Government is good while WY and ID, and some of the other states like the opposite people.
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: George Reich on April 30, 2003, 03:55:25 am
What is socialism?

Is it Bill Clinton or Al Gore?

NH voted for Bill Clinton twice.

NH was less than 20,000 votes from helping to elect Al Gore.

Ralph Nader is popular in NH.

Are these men socialist?  Are people that vote for them socialist?

I guess it depends how you define socialist.

Why don't you election analyzers ever report on the 2002 election in NH?

I have written about it.  The thing is, I was talking about Major elections where the most powerful man in the world is being elected.  NH seems to like people that run-on Big Government is good while WY and ID, and some of the other states like the opposite people.

I hate to burst your bubble, but Daddy Bush and Bob Dole were big government people, too. And NH voters have never liked the Bushes and Dole ran a poor campaign here.
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: Zxcv on May 01, 2003, 01:09:20 am
I have to go with George on this one, Keith. About the best you can say for George Bush II is that he ran on a slightly-smaller government platform (and then he was lying). And people know by now that libertarian rhetoric from R presidential candidates is just window-dressing.

Quote
Why don't you election analyzers ever report on the 2002 election in NH?

Because it wasn't a presidential election. It's much harder to compare states when there is no commonality, like a common candidate. How would you do it, George?

Quote
So much for the idea that immigration from Massachusetts is somehow making NH more socialist.  ::)
Don't roll your eyes, George. The concern is not entirely unfounded, just look at what happened in Nevada.

I don't know how the Massachusetts economy is going now, but if it slows down a lot while NH's keeps tooting along, that's the time to watch out for those economic refugees. About that time you'll be wishing you had that militia image like ID does. Better keep that "Live Free or Die" on your car tags.   :)
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: George Reich on May 01, 2003, 07:23:02 am
Because it wasn't a presidential election. It's much harder to compare states when there is no commonality, like a common candidate. How would you do it, George?

The only way I can think of is to compare the voting records of the current legislators to those of the previous ones. Even then, however, a direct comparison is impossible because the legislators are voting on different bills.

Quote
I don't know how the Massachusetts economy is going now, but if it slows down a lot while NH's keeps tooting along, that's the time to watch out for those economic refugees. About that time you'll be wishing you had that militia image like ID does. Better keep that "Live Free or Die" on your car tags.   :)

All the evidence is pointing towards our best legislators being those who represent Hillsborough and Rockingham counties. Those are the counties receiving almost all of the immigrants. If this trend continues, it will explode the "socialist in-migration" myth once and for all.
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: freedomroad on May 01, 2003, 11:17:06 am
I have to go with George on this one, Keith. About the best you can say for George Bush II is that he ran on a slightly-smaller government platform (and then he was lying). And people know by now that libertarian rhetoric from R presidential candidates is just window-dressing.


Of course, Bush will not pass most of the things he talked about when he was running for president.  However, is ran as a friend to small government while Gore ran as a friend to big government.

I am from TN and I know all about Gore!

Bush wanted a huge tax cut, to part-privatize social security, to only expand senior healthcare by 1/2 as much as Gore.  Good lord, Gore 'idealises' the end of gas-powered CARS.  Read a book or so by Gore and you will find the huge and massive government he was planning.

I voted for Harry Browne because Bush wanted to make government a little bigger and Gore wanted to make it much, much bigger.

Bush even ran as a friend to the 2nd Amendment, while Gore is against the 2nd Amendment.  As it turns out, Bush is in the middle on gun-control and is not pro-secondment Amendment.  However, Bush ran as pro-guns and Gore ran as anti-right to self-defense (guns).

It does not matter if Bush and Gore are both liars, it matters what they stood for and how people voted.  What About Nader, how can you defend him, Paul?

Nader wanted to take almost all of the money from NH's top wage earners.  Anything over a certain amount, as Nader planned, should be taxed at 100%.  That 'certain amount' was not even very high.  I know many people that make well over that amount, right now.

Compare this to Wyoming.  It voted against Clinton (really, much of the votes for Bush and Dole were really anti-Clinton votes).  Wyoming did not vote for Nader at all and voted for Bush over Gore by a large amount.

Even people that love welfare, like SD, ND, AK, and MT, they all voted for Bush, because they know that Gore in anti-almost everything that is good.
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: Hank on May 01, 2003, 12:16:34 pm
FreedomRoad,
Good synopsis of what people were voting for in the Presidential election. Anybody voting for Nader or Gore were voting for a lot huger, more invasive, and more confiscatory government than those who voted for Bush.

A majority of New Hampshire voters picked Gore or Nader.
If it had not been for Nader, Gore would have won New Hampshire.

In the days before Clinton and after FDR New Hampshire always voted for Republicans. NH even gave FDR a close one. Compared to then, New Hampshire is more socialist!
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: craft_6 on May 01, 2003, 12:35:10 pm
Anybody voting for Nader or Gore were voting for a lot huger, more invasive, and more confiscatory government than those who voted for Bush.

Not if they did any research into the candidates' proposals.  Gore was proposing an 8% increase in the federal budget, while Bush was proposing a 4% increase.  Bush also was pushing a prescription drug benefit, government aid to religious charities, and increasing federal involvement in education.

Bush subsequently submitted a budget increasing federal spending by 6%, which ballooned from there, and is now (three years later) 22% larger than Clinton's largest.  Anyone who was surprised by this somehow missed the obvious point that Bush was also a bigger-government candidate.

Since 98% of the voters in all 10 states voted for bigger-government candidates, the FSP will have its work cut out for it, no matter which state is selected.
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: freedomroad on May 01, 2003, 09:52:33 pm
Anybody voting for Nader or Gore were voting for a lot huger, more invasive, and more confiscatory government than those who voted for Bush.

Not if they did any research into the candidates' proposals.  Gore was proposing an 8% increase in the federal budget, while Bush was proposing a 4% increase.  

Thank you for showing even more evidence of my point.  
Quote

Bush also was pushing a prescription drug benefit, government aid to religious charities, and increasing federal involvement in education.

Gore wanted to make the prescription drug benefit much, much larger than Bush.  

Bush did not want to expand the amount of money that goes to charities.  He wanted to keep the amount of money the same.  He thought that the current system discriminated against religious charities because 2 organizations could be exactly the same in every way, but if one was somehow connected with religion, it could not get handouts.  Bush wanted both secular and religious organizations to have an equal opportunitiy to get handouts.

I am against this, but it is not as bad as many people make it out to be.
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: jgmaynard on May 01, 2003, 09:59:24 pm
Gore didn't almost win NH, Bush almost lost it. He failed to get the primary nomination, which went to Buchanan, and he failed to get the endorsement of the Union Leader, which is a MUST for Republicans in NH. When Buch won the NH primary (which wouldn't happen in a "socialist" state ;)) the UL ran the headline "Read OUR Lips". NH has never liked the Bushes.
In '02, however, when we had a choice between Marc "income tax" Fernald and a true fiscal conservative, Craig Benson, Benson got elected 2:1, and there were still enough Libertarian votes left over to give John Babiarz the 2nd or 3rd highest vote percentage for Governor in the country.
Title: New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: George Reich on May 02, 2003, 11:14:21 am
If you can't say anything else nice about Craig, you've got to admit that the guy has a sense of humor.  ;D

"TAX ME MORE"

A special account for those who want to pay higher taxes

CONCORD: Today Governor Craig Benson announced that he is setting up a special "Tax Me More" account for those who feel that their taxes aren't high enough.

"The voters spoke loud and clear last November: No income tax, no sales tax, no tax increases, no way. I have put forward the first budget in a long time that controls spending and lowers taxes. But every now and then I hear someone wants to spend more money or raise some tax," said Benson. "I can certainly respect a difference of opinion and I want to accommodate those who feel that their taxes aren't high enough. That's why I am setting up the 'Tax Me More' account for those people who want to pay more in taxes."

Anyone wishing to pay higher taxes can make their checks payable to "The State of NH / Tax Me More Account" and mail their checks to Administrative Services, Room 120, Statehouse Annex, Concord, NH, 03301. All voluntary tax payments should be accompanied by the "Tax Me More" tax form. Copies of the form are available the Governor's Customer Service Department and can be obtained by calling (603) 271-7626.




http://www.state.nh.us/governor/pr03_06_03taxes.html
Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: jgmaynard on May 02, 2003, 11:46:13 am
Don't you just LOVE love LOVE this guy? lol... One of my favs is if
you call Benson's office with any problem or suggestion, you get sent
to "the customer service department".... lol...
Now one of his sites is talking about how in "1774 [NH was the] first
state to declare independence from England"... You hinting there,
Craigy boy? :o)

JM

Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: Kelton Baker on May 02, 2003, 03:30:31 pm
While it is very exciting to see the governor of NH create a "Tax Me More" account, and a definite big plus for combating the hypocrisy of all those "limousine liberals",  it is actually an idea that has been taking shape across the nation for a few years now.  We're even working on one here in California!

For more info see http://www.taxmemore.org/  (http://www.taxmemore.org/)
28
Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: vermass on May 02, 2003, 04:25:43 pm
    "Taking shape across the nation for a few years now". I myself know of only one other state the has it.
     I'm trying to put this as tactfully as possible: NH and the NH FSPer's and libertarian party are making some big strides, It seems like supporters of other states downplay everything they accomplish. I myself have written (and I paraphrase)  that everytime someone says something good about NH someone has two good things to say about WY. That was good for WY. I have of late began to notice that this almost seems more of a tactic than actual comparison. I have a spreadsheet. The difference isn't very big between the two states (NH does have a much larger poplulation). Now what has happened in WY in the PAST FEW MONTHS that would add to WY's appeal? They are working like hell in NH and they  ARE getting somewhere! Not only that but that darned governer sounds pretty good. He may actually be helping pave the way for the FSP!
     What I'm saying is that there are people in NH doing a fantastic job at selling NH as THEE state for the FSP. There are a lot of people who want to MOVE to WY. I haven't heard much from people in WY, "come here, come here, we're doing this for you". No matter how much emphasis you put on population all we need is a MAJORITY. You get that majority with activist.
    People talk about the statist from Boston moving to NH. I'm not real sure about that. Why move out of MA if you love it's pollitical climate so much. I think many more people that are "sick of MA" (like me) are moving out. In MA we know about the "Live Free or Die" state. When you just can't take it here anymore you move THERE!
Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: Kelton Baker on May 02, 2003, 04:55:25 pm
Quote
It seems like supporters of other states downplay everything they accomplish.

This was not an effort to downplay NH the state,  just an attempt at putting the announcement and exuberant comments in context. ...

After all,

I did say that this is a a definite big plus [For New Hampshire] for combating the hypocrisy of all those "limousine liberals"

I did say that it is very exciting to see the governor of NH create a "Tax Me More" account.

I still say, "Wow!"

Furthermore, I will be very pleased to join-up with this great movement and help gov. Craig and the NH LP accomplish more, if NH is chosen.

However, while gov. Benson may be the best governor in the whole country and funny, creative and strongly pro-liberty, I merely point-out that the idea is not original, and an idea that has been on talk radio for years and years, while a political movement for about two years now.

And I do praise gov. Benson for having the guts to do this on his own.  In Idaho and Alaska and all the other states where this has been proposed, but not yet passed, it has been a proposal only in the legislature.
 
 
However, the creation of this thread with the announcement by the governor hasn't moved my ranking of NH any higher than 2nd place, in case anybody wants to know.
48
Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: di540 on May 02, 2003, 05:16:06 pm

They are working like hell in NH and they ARE getting somewhere!
Not only that but that darned governer sounds pretty good. He may
actually be helping pave the way for the FSP!
But this isn't quantifiable &/or tangible. So, it would
be preferable to vote for criteria that are, not for states.
It's much harder to present an argument for or against a state,
than for one criterion, and much more of an ordeal to have to
reread the rehashed arguments for or against a given state.
Quote
I haven't heard much from people in WY, "come here,come here,
we're doing this for you". No matter how much emphasis you put
on population all we need is a MAJORITY. You get that majority
with activist.
You can also get that majority w/absentee voters who are rarely
in that state. There are many RVers in the U.S. who technically
could reside anywhere for voting purposes, although Alaska would
be a long, expensive haul for them. This is just one of many
characteritics that should be researched. The most relevant ones
could be selected as voting criteria. The research committee can
rank them, or weight them such as:

1:1 weighting of population: If the vote were held using that
alone, then about 2x as many members should have to vote for
N.H. than for Wyoming in order to overcome such a weighting.
Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: vermass on May 02, 2003, 06:59:11 pm
  OK exitus, I like that post better.
  mAximo, I didn't mean "we" as in NH supporters, I haven't thrown in with that group yet, I'm just "taking another look at NH". The "all we need is a majority" comment refered to once we have moved to a state, than to pass our reforms "all we need is a majority"!
Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: freedomroad on May 02, 2003, 10:27:24 pm
 OK exitus, I like that post better.
  mAximo, I didn't mean "we" as in NH supporters, I haven't thrown in with that group yet, I'm just "taking another look at NH". The "all we need is a majority" comment refered to once we have moved to a state, than to pass our reforms "all we need is a majority"!

It is certainly interesting that someone would think all we need is a majority....

First off, to get a majority or 51% of the voters, you will most likely, have to go through one of the 2 main parties.  In a state like ID, WY, NH, or AK, maybe only the Republican Party would really make it.  There is little chance that the LP can ever offset the RP and the DP.

However, even if you get the Republican party to become the Freedom Party, that will not mean much.  As soon as we start talking about legal pot, the end of government high schools, the end of government-community colleges, the end of the laws against window tinting, open containers, and try to privatize all prisons, including other things, all types of hell will be raised against this majority.  Your simple majority will fall down to a much, much smaller amount.  

WE MUST HAVE more than a simple majority, at least for the first few years.  Until we can get people conditioned into loving freedom, our support will splinter and splinter.

Talk to or read the dozens of post on THIS subject by Joe.

BTW, I guess this is good news from NH.  I am not even sure if it is a good thing, it reminds me of Hanity's sense of humor.
Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: Robert H. on May 03, 2003, 01:07:17 am
BTW, I guess this is good news from NH.  I am not even sure if it is a good thing, it reminds me of Hanity's sense of humor.

As hateful, condescending, dishonest, and downright destructive as the Left can be, I don't usually mind a laugh at their expense.
Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: jgmaynard on May 04, 2003, 07:49:01 pm
As soon as we start talking about:

legal pot, (Republican Gary Johnson has done the best here)

the end of government high schools,(The Rep party in NH is finding LOTS of ways to allow more school choice)

the end of government-community colleges (Gov Benson is reducing aid to Gov colleges here :D)

the end of the laws against window tinting, (talk to the lobby ;))

open containers (Interesting. Although I think DUI is a horrible thing, if you're not drunk, you're not drunk. Q: IN WY, MT  you can drive with an open container, but if a cop stops you, can you be forced to take a DUI test? Could it be used as evidence in a DUI trial?)

But the point is, SOME Rep and Dems can be pro-liberty... But heed the words of Washington: "Entangling alliances with none"....

JM

Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: Zxcv on May 04, 2003, 09:52:43 pm
Quote
But every now and then I hear someone wants to spend more money or raise some tax," said Benson.

I hope he's making the point that no government at any level, anywhere, would turn down extra money from any taxpayer. People who say "I don't mind paying higher taxes to make sure all our kids get a good education," are not really talking about themselves paying more taxes. THEY CAN ALREADY DO THAT. What they are really saying is, "I don't mind forcing others to cough up some more so I don't have to take full responsibility for my kid's education."

I make this argument every time I see the "I don't mind" argument - letters to the editor, internet forums, and so forth.

I do like this tactic by Benson, I hope he really runs with it (and makes the above argument with it as well). People need to learn to read between the lines of all these political special-interest euphemisms.

How long can Benson stay in office? 8 years? I hope he spawns a lot of mini-Bensons too. In the meantime, remember, he won't be there forever.

Quote
the end of government high schools,(The Rep party in NH is finding LOTS of ways to allow more school choice)
James, I'm not impressed. "School choice" is just another euphemism for government schooling. Vouchers, charter schools, govt. "help" for homeschoolers. It is a crock. Keep cutting taxes and starve the beast - that's the ticket. And de-regulate the non-government alternatives, private and homeschools.
Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: Reaper on May 04, 2003, 10:08:47 pm
Nice parlor trick.

Too bad the blockhead is opposed to legalizing even medical marijuana.  Not much of a libertarian if you ask me.  More old school stuffed shirt religious right republican type.

Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: vermass on May 05, 2003, 10:02:47 am
  Freedomroad my mistake. Funny thing, this weekend a CNA of mine was studying to get her GED. She had this pollitical test, so she passes it to me, here Rob you you should be able to handle this. So, I take the test and it's one of those matching things you know, match this column with that one. I'm almost done, everything is matched except I have this left in column one: Plurality. In column two I'm left with this: when a candidate wins by obtaining more votes than the other candidates but doesn't have a MAJORITY.
Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: jgmaynard on May 05, 2003, 10:41:33 am
"Too bad the blockhead is opposed to legalizing even medical marijuana."

If you have a link to him coming out against med pot, let's see it! I have just done a search, and can't find any statement one way or another on it.... But I have e-mailed nhorml to ask them what their impression of him is...

As for vouchers, I'm not crazy about them either, but the point of the message was that we can occasionally work with any party on certain issues, and Benson IS working with the LPNH!.

JM
Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: Reaper on May 05, 2003, 11:08:21 am
Glad to here:

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/august02/8_15_02.shtml (http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/august02/8_15_02.shtml)

Here's the relevent section:

"On social policy questions, in particular, their answers varied little. All are pro-life. All would veto any same-sex marriage proposal. All believe in the set-up of a traditional family -- a father, mother, kids, and Humphrey suggested two dogs.

Keough and Humphrey said they would consider allowing marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes if it were demonstrated as the only drug that would work.

Benson said he wouldn’t allow it. He said there clearly must be other drugs that work just as well."

If the NHLP is truly considering cross nominating this guy it speaks volumes about the NHLP, and I don't mean in a good way.

Title: Re:New Hampshire Governor: "Tax Me More"
Post by: jgmaynard on May 05, 2003, 12:28:04 pm
Hmmm... Interesting. He hasn't seemed to have made any mention of it yet, but perhaps he would if such a bill were proposed.
BUT he nominated Peter Heed to be state AG, and Peter is known for getting hard drug offenders into treatment instead of punishment.
I knew he was pro-life, but that didn't bother me much because it isn't a state issue. I'll let you know what I hear from NHORML.


JM
Title: Re:Exploding the myth that NH is becoming more socialist
Post by: George Reich on May 09, 2003, 01:59:17 pm
April 27th editorial in New Hampshire's largest newspaper:

Unscrewing lightbulbs: NH's government funding
is better

NEW HAMPSHIRE'S current budget woes put us in mind of Winston Churchill's observation about the relative merits of democracy. It is, he said, the worst form of government except all others.

One need look, or listen, no further than neighboring Massachusetts to hear the wails and cries of anguish as that state suffers the inevitable consequence when years of gross overspending meet up with a sluggish economy and a people that are just tapped dry.

The Bay State is not alone.

The governor of Missouri, the New York Times reported recently, has ordered every third light bulb unscrewed. Teachers in Oklahoma are doubling as janitors. In Oregon, they are working two weeks without pay. Other states are releasing prison inmates early.

That last is something that is being talked of, again, in New Hampshire. If so, it should be with extreme caution and only after the minimum sentence is met. Our truth-in-sentencing reform years ago did away with sham sentences in which certain felons were out as soon as they were in.

For the most part, however, New Hampshire has thus far escaped the drastic measures being taken elsewhere. Why? Because New Hampshire has, relatively speaking, resisted growth in government. Spending did jump up sharply under Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in the 1990s, though. And that, coupled with the state supreme court's misreading of the state's role in education funding, has built up immense pressure for more taxes.

The point here is that all these other states, which find themselves facing disaster, already have more taxes, including the broadbased sales and income taxes that liberals claim to be the answer to all ills. It is those huge taxes that fuel the huge spending that these other states now find impossible to afford.

New Hampshire may need to undergo some pain in the new budget proposed by Gov. Benson and now under review by the Legislature. But the governor was wise to make it clear that the answer is not new taxes, and New Hampshire voters can pat themselves on the back for continuing to resist those who would tax our state's advantage right out of existence.

Next, we hope that Gov. Benson will be true to his word and, post-budget, look for some wholesale renovation and reform that will effect meaningful savings. Perhaps his new commission on state efficiency will be of help in that regard.

http://www.theunionleader.com/primary_show.html?article=20574

Title: FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: jgmaynard on May 17, 2003, 09:34:07 am
FreeStateNHLIVE.com on the air!

   Are you a member of the Free State Project who wants to learn more about New Hampshire? Do you live in, or just love, New Hampshire and want to learn more about the Free State Project? Have you always wanted to visit the Granite State, but don't have the time or money?
   If you answered “yes” 'to any of these questions, you are in luck! New Hampshire supporters of the Free State Project are proud to announce the unveiling of “FreeStateNHLive.com”. The web site, located at http://www.freestatenhlive.com , offers web-cams from around the “Live Free or Die” state. From the wind-swept heights of Mt. Washington, to the Atlantic shore at Hampton Beach, FreeStateNHLive offers a guided tour of one of the most beautiful places on Earth, New Hampshire.
   In addition to live web-cams, the site also offers a page of original New Hampshire photographs taken by FSP members, and many fun filled facts about the state. Also, every week, a “NH Hot Spot” will be featured, where you can learn about New Hampshire's great diversity of attractions, culture and climate. In the first week, we are featuring “America's Stonehenge”; an astronomical observatory and ritual area over four thousand years old.
   Treat yourself to a free tour of one of the freest, most beautiful places anywhere, New Hampshire, at http://www.freestatenhlive.com .
Title: New Hampshire House passes Jury nullification Act
Post by: jgmaynard on May 18, 2003, 11:42:48 am
"a criminal defendant has a right that the court instruct the jury of its inherent right to disregard the law and the facts in controversy and to nullify".

Ain't this the grandest?  ;D The NH House has passed an act (HB 122) insuring the right of juries to judge the law, as well as the facts in the case, ensuring the power of jury nullification. The bill is sponsored almost totally by Republicans, so that means the Senate should pass it as well, and Governor Benson will likely sign it.
One of the cornerstone issues of Libertarianism is about to become the law of the land in New Hampshire ;D
Although mention of Jury Nullification has always been allowed in New Hampshire courts during closing arguments, this bill will enumerate that power into law.

The text of the bill may be found at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2003/HB0122.html

JM
Title: Re:New Hampshire House passes Jury nullification Act
Post by: jgmaynard on May 20, 2003, 08:32:21 am
My letter above has just been used in the latest Coalition of NH Taxpayers e-mailing.
So now the NH Defense Lawyers Association, and the State's largest tax relief group are now both backing this bill...
It's on it's way into law, kids! ;D

JM
Title: Re:New Hampshire House passes Jury nullification Act
Post by: Dalamar49 on May 20, 2003, 10:49:29 am
Hell ya!  ;D
Title: Re:New Hampshire House passes Jury nullification Act
Post by: vermass on May 20, 2003, 12:24:15 pm
   Hey, this also applies to victims right? I mean if the law states one thing but the jury sees differently they can punish the defendent as they see fit? Violent criminals do get off on technicalities at times!
   Also, how well will this hold up in circuit court upon repeal? Anybody know that answer?
Title: Re:New Hampshire House passes Jury nullification Act
Post by: jgmaynard on May 20, 2003, 02:27:34 pm
Jury nullification is almost never used in cases involving violence. They HAVE been used however, to eliminate the fugitive slave laws, Jim Crow laws, and prohibition I.

It's the victimless crimes and prohibition II which will see the greatest effect from it.

The state's largest taxpayers group came out in support of it today.

If you're from NH, folks, it's time to call and write your Senators and the Governor. <sings, badly  ::)> "We've only just begun..." But a few Senators have already heard from us.  ;D

JM
Title: Re:New Hampshire House passes Jury nullification Act
Post by: di540 on May 20, 2003, 03:56:21 pm
  Also, how well will this hold up in circuit court upon repeal? Anybody know that answer?
If the jury instruction is ever changed to say that the jurors
have a right to disregard "the" facts or to "judge the law",
any appealed case which had such an instruction will get
overturned by any circuit court, esp. in Boston, which is the
traditional capital of the east coast establishment. Jurors
don't have the power to judge the law, only the application
of the law, since the law will remain in force, no matter
what their decision is. "The" facts is too broad a wording,
since it implies that the jury can bypass their duty to
judge what is fact, before deciding on the ethics etc. of
applying a given law to them. Such wording encourages a
juror to vote for political reasons no matter what are
"the" facts.
.
However, when you read how the law will applied in the
wording of the jury instructions, it's very tame. If it stays
that way, there should be no problem. It assumes that the
jurors will know that the word "should" is derived from the
verb "shall" and therefore does not have the denotation of
"must".
Title: Re:New Hampshire House passes Jury nullification Act
Post by: jgmaynard on May 20, 2003, 09:46:52 pm
Giving jurors the power of nullification lets the jury judge the law... That's the point... ;D

JM
Title: Re:New Hampshire House passes Jury nullification Act
Post by: di540 on May 20, 2003, 11:55:35 pm
Giving jurors the power of nullification lets the jury judge the law... That's the point... ;D

.
But that law did not give the jury the power to nullify the
law. The intro overstates the jury instruction. Besides,
the jury instruction it authorises is so understated, you
wouldn't know that a juror has the power to nullify any
application of the law that 'does violence to your
conscience'. Under "application" it only refers
to "entering a verdict".
.
there was nothing in that law, which said that any law
would cease to have force, as a result of a jury verdict.
Title: Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: Hank on May 26, 2003, 12:37:02 pm
Identifying if a state has a "best place to locate"
for the most effective Free State activism may be important.
That is being discussed about Wyoming.
Zxcv asks New Hampshire boosters to do it for their state.
Well, we'd still want some activism going on at the county levels, and even the smaller cities, so we do want some spread in the state.

Anyway, Cheyenne/Laramie is an obvious great location for our think tank, too.

The one thing that points toward Casper is the newspaper, the only statewide distribution. If we have any journalism or newspaper folks we ought to point them there...

Come on, NH guys, let's hear what you have in mind for an ideal distribution there!  I'm curious where I'd have to live.  :)

Robert's post is an example of what to consider.
If we scatter all over the state, we may be diluted to ineffectiveness.
Should we concentrate in Concord and Manchester?
or Portsmouth?
or maybe take over Coos County with a Free State think tank in Berlin?

The Cheyenne/Laramie corridor (50 miles between the two cities) is a great area of emphasis in Wyoming.

As stated, Cheyenne is the state capital and a major source of the statist influence beginning to crop up in Wyoming, and it also happens to be the largest population center in the state, so there is more in the way of possible jobs and other opportunity there.  It's also a small enough area that even a few of us could have a very noticeable presence and potential impact.

The University of Wyoming at Laramie provides an excellent opportunity for us to reach out to college students with Jeffersonian thought.  If we are successful, they could be of great assistance in spreading these ideas throughout the rest of the state.  I believe many younger people have an underlying philosophy of life (live-and-let-live) that is favorable to us.  We could provide the political home that so many of them have been seeking (the GOP and Democrats expressing frustration that they have been unsuccessful in recruiting more youthful voters and activists).

The two cities are natural migration points due to their various features, so it would be simpler to get more people to move there, and they are close enough to one another to alleviate concerns about being so "spread out" that we could never get together.
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: StevenN on May 26, 2003, 01:29:15 pm
Speaking of being scattered and diluted, I think the dilution factor bodes well for NH. FSP activists can reach most points in the state easily. In WY, you've got a lot of space to cover outside of Cheyenne. All things being equal, I think the FSP would have a better chance for success in NH than WY (remember, only on the basis of dilution). Ultimately, I think it wouldn't matter as much where you settled in NH. The way the state's demographic geography is set up, wherever you are, you'll have more people to hear your activism around you. I think the activists dispersion would be very balanced in NH. In WY, though, activists would be more "clustered", I think. There'd be large sections outside of Cheyenne, Casper, and Laramie w/o activists.
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: jgmaynard on May 26, 2003, 07:21:35 pm
We're working on gathering data for all the major towns and cities in New Hampshire.... We are right now looking at what the situation would be if we concentrated in, probably 4 out of 10 counties, where we have a good record, there's a good job market, housing available, etc. We'll probably announce the county research results before too long.
Not that we are trying to direct anything - Just making educated suggestions.

JM
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on May 28, 2003, 02:39:16 am
In WY, though, activists would be more "clustered", I think.

Right, clustered near cities, just like most people.
Quote

 There'd be large sections outside of Cheyenne, Casper, and Laramie w/o activists.

Right, where very, very few people live you will find very, very few FSP members.


About moving to certain parts of NH, well, don't expect many of the FSP members to be moving past middle NH, it is just too cold and snowy (it even gets quite windy) in north NH.

Also, do not expect many FSP members to move to Portsmouth, it is just too expensive to live there.

If I was gonna pick 4 counties I would pick:

Cheshire,
It is Keene, some curent LP activism, is close to Brattleboro VT, and not far from Nashua, and Manchester NH.  Also, it is one of the warmest and least snowy counties in NH because it is in southern NH.

Hillsborough,
This is where everyone that wants to live in a city will move, Nashua is a 'burb of Boston, Boston and the rest of MA is close, and this county has the best weather in NH.

Merrimack,
Concord, the state capital is here.  You can live in this county and drive to a job in Manchester in 15 min.  Nice holling hills and lots of good fishing.

and Grafton
Well, if I had to pick another county I wanted to pick the biggest.  This county offers mts (eastern style), two big lakes, and a short drive to a really big lake and Laconia, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT for work.  It might be windy, snowy, and cold, even a little isolated, but it looks very nice and land is cheap.
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: MoonChaser on May 28, 2003, 03:04:12 am
I'm currently thinking about Barrington.  It's a decent-sized town, about 7,000 people.  And it's only about 30 miles or so from the city of Manchester.  Of course, ANYWHERE in NH would be great!  I prefer to be in or near a small to medium sized city, however. (like 25,000 - 150,000)

Ultimately it will depend on wherever I can find employment and affordable housing.
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on May 28, 2003, 09:24:56 am
I think Manchester is a good choice for city dwellers (a Libertarian was elected to the NH house from Manchester in 2000) and probably offers the best job market in the state.

For those who would prefer living in a smaller city, I would suggest Keene or Rochester. For those who prefer small town or rural living, a number of the small towns in Grafton county might be good choices.

I think potential NH immigrants should also give serious consideration to Deerfield. The town has elected Libertarians before, there are several freedom activists already living there.

It is a fairly easy commute from Deerfield to Concord, Manchester, the Rochester/Dover/Portsmouth area, or even Massachusetts, yet it has quite a bit of open space, too.
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on May 28, 2003, 02:47:06 pm
While I'm not ready to offer recommendations, I have just put the finishing touches on a resource that I believe will be very helpful to porcupines trying to determine which part of NH they are interested in moving to:

http://www.lpnh.org/nh-pop-density.htm
http://www.lpnh.org/nh-municipalities.htm

If nothing else, I believe this shows the incredible diversity of choices that NH offers.

Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: jgmaynard on May 29, 2003, 04:55:33 pm
About moving to certain parts of NH, well, don't expect many of the FSP members to be moving past middle NH, it is just too cold and snowy (it even gets quite windy) in north NH.

It only takes 3 hours to get from south to north NH... Not enough to make a difference for winter, though altitude could, since above Concord you enter the foothills of the White Mountains... BUT the highest surface winds ever recorded in the world were in NH - On top of Mt. Washington.

Also, do not expect many FSP members to move to Portsmouth, it is just too expensive to live there.

Portsmouth is kinda expensive, but many members have the resources to live in that historic community.... 400 year old buildings....
Most of the rest of NH, with the exception of extreme southern NH towns like Nashua and Hudson will get FSP members that want to work in MA and the Boston area.

Actually, there's many jobs in Hillsboro County itself as well, PLUS no income tax or gas expenses that you get for working in Mass...

Cheshire,
It is Keene, some curent LP activism, is close to Brattleboro VT, and not far from Nashua, and Manchester NH.  Also, it is one of the warmest and least snowy counties in NH because it is in southern NH.

Again, there is not enough distance n-s in NH for weather to change much... I would think Portsmouth would be warmer because of the ocean effect. But yes, Keene also has a taxpayers group  which consists of 10% of the voting population of Keene... If the FSP picks NHY, they'll be there to back us up...

Hillsborough,
This is where everyone that wants to live in a city will move, Nashua is a 'burb of Boston, Boston and the rest of MA is close, and this county has the best weather in NH.

There's a long stretch of little towns between Boston and Nashua... Boston really ends at the 495 hub... It isn't til you get into that ring that the traffic gets really bad, for instance...

Merrimack,
Concord, the state capital is here.  You can live in this county and drive to a job in Manchester in 15 min.  Nice holling hills and lots of good fishing.

There's actually good fishing all around the state... I don't do much myself, but doing research on NH towns for the LPNH, I was AMAZED at the # of fishing spots listed in the atlas...

and Grafton
Well, if I had to pick another county I wanted to pick the biggest.  This county offers MT (eastern style) two big lakes and a short drive to a really big lake and Laconia, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT for work.  It might be windy, snowy, and cold, even a little isolated, but it looks very nice and land is cheap.

That is actually also a bit of a hot spot for Libertarianism as well... John Babiarz, for instance, lives there.
If NH is picked, this is one of the first counties people wanting large distances between homes should look.

From Ellsworth (population 87), to Manchester (population 107,000), New Hampshire offers somewhere for everyone.  :)
Title: Re:New Hampshire House passes Jury nullification Act
Post by: Robert H. on June 02, 2003, 04:08:32 am
This bill was defeated by the New Hampshire Senate:

Jury Bill is Voted Down in the Senate (http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/politics2003/053003_for_the_record_2003.shtml)

It's too bad too.  This would have been a good thing.

***
From the above article:

Informed Jury

The Senate voted not to require judges to tell juries they have the right to disregard the law in reaching a verdict.

Under common law, juries currently have the right to refuse to return a guilty verdict when doing so would offend their conscience.

The House voted, 220-149, to give defendants the power to make judges tell juries they can disregard the law rather than leave it to the judges' discretion.

But the Senate voted to kill the bill.

Judges would have had to give the jury instruction if the defense requested it, which legal experts said would be almost every time.

Prosecutors, police and court officials said the bill would tip the scales of justice too far toward the defendant and clog the court system with more trials, longer trials, and mistrials.

The standard jury instruction in New Hampshire, called the Wentworth instruction, says, in part, "if you find that the state has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty."

The legislation called for the judge to elaborate on the word 'should,' telling jurors they have "the absolute right to decline to enter a verdict which could do violence to your conscience
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on June 02, 2003, 10:22:36 am
or maybe take over Coos County with a Free State think tank in Berlin?

If any people who want to live in truly rural areas actually move to NH, Coos county would be the best place for them.
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: Stumpy on June 02, 2003, 10:45:26 am
Which counties or areas have the most libertarian activity?
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on June 02, 2003, 10:51:13 am
Which counties or areas have the most libertarian activity?

Cheshire, Hillsborough, Rockingham, and Grafton counties.
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: Stumpy on June 02, 2003, 11:00:47 am
Thanks.

Quote
Cheshire, Hillsborough, Rockingham,
These are built up, correct?

Quote
Grafton  
Rural, correct?

I’m asking this so that I (and maybe others) can better target the search for property if NH is chosen.
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: Stumpy on June 02, 2003, 12:34:03 pm
Have you joined the Free State Project yet Joe?
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on June 02, 2003, 02:03:42 pm
Thanks.

Quote
Cheshire, Hillsborough, Rockingham,
These are built up, correct?

Quote
Grafton  
Rural, correct?

I'm asking this so that I (and maybe others) can better target the search for property if NH is chosen.

Hillsborough and Rockingham counties are the most "built up" in NH and contain about half of NH's population. Cheshire is much less so and Grafton even less than that.
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on June 02, 2003, 02:14:57 pm
Are the 400,000 people in Strafford, Merrimack, Carroll, Sullivan, and Belknap counties lost to socialism/liberalism then?

No, I just see more libertarian activity in the other counties I mentioned. Others might disagree with my assessment.

Quote
Are the counties closest to Massachusetts purposely being "anti-Massachusetts" as some evidence about speech accents points to?

I believe so.

Quote
Coos county would be my choice, if I could find a great paying job which I'd love working at. ;)

Good luck. It wouldn't be easy. Coos county is desolate and has few well-paying jobs (or any other kind, for that matter). I cannot imagine anyone wanting to live there. It is a nice area for a vacation, however. Maybe if you located your store in the right spot...

Libertarians (large or small "L")  could undoubtedly do well there (but I didn't mention it earlier because I don't know of many LPNH members from that area who are active...)
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: Stumpy on June 02, 2003, 02:15:55 pm
Joe,
It’s been over 9 years since I’ve been to Coos Co. NH, but I do remember it as being one of the most scenic places I’ve ever been.

A tour director’s job probably wouldn’t pay as much as being the proprietor of a small touring company.

Best wishes on your upcoming election, BTW.

libertarian40,
Thanks again.
If NH is chosen, my family will most likely look to Grafton Co.
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on June 02, 2003, 02:25:17 pm
Joe,
It's been over 9 years since I've been to Coos Co. NH, but I do remember it as being one of the most scenic places I've ever been.

I wouldn't argue with you on that one. It is beautiful up there.

Quote
A tour director's job probably wouldn't pay as much as being the proprietor of a small touring company.

There's an idea...

Quote
libertarian40,
Thanks again.
If NH is chosen, my family will most likely look to Grafton Co.

You're welcome. I believe Grafton county is indeed an excellent choice. I think that the whole county already leans more libertarian than almost any other one in NH. The libertarian "punch" per added porcupine would be more in Grafton than in almost any other NH county. It just needs some more activists. Of course, one would have to like small town and rural living...

The countryside is darned pretty there, too.
Title: Re:New Hampshire House passes Jury nullification Act
Post by: George Reich on June 03, 2003, 09:26:01 am
Yes, we NH residents really dropped the ball on this one. A little more lobbying on our part and the bill might not have been killed in the senate committee.

However, I am encouraged that the house was even able to pass this bill by a 220-149 margin. How many other states have done that?

Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Goes on the air!
Post by: jgmaynard on June 03, 2003, 12:50:19 pm
What is 6,288 feet tall, millions of years old, and has seen the highest winds EVER recorded in the world?

It's Mt. Washington, and it is the Free State NH LIVE!!! New Hampshire hot spot of the week.....

Take a look at the highest point in the northeast, where the wind once reached 231 MPH. And view it live through the Free State NH LIVE!!! webcams......

If you dare.....

http://www.freestatenhlive.com

 
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: jgmaynard on June 03, 2003, 03:59:43 pm
Are the 400,000 people in Strafford, Merrimack, Carroll, Sullivan, and Belknap counties lost to socialism/liberalism then?

Actually, Cheshire is the ONLY liberal majority county in NH..... It is mostly liberal, with a REAL strong Libertarian bent... For instance, in 2000, Cheshire is the only NH county Gore won, but I am pretty sure it is also one of the counties where Browne did the best (about 4% if I recall correctly).  Have you seen the movie Jumanji? That was mostly filmed in Keene, Cheshire County's largest city, where I live :D

The rest of the counties are Republican territory..... But we NH Libs count most Republicans as friends here..... Taxes are basically the ONLY campaign issue every election. They're not heck-bent on social issues like some state's Republicans.....
Title: Re:New Hampshire House passes Jury nullification Act
Post by: Robert H. on June 04, 2003, 03:35:02 am
However, I am encouraged that the house was even able to pass this bill by a 220-149 margin. How many other states have done that?

I think South Dakota may have voted on it as an initiative item, but I'm not sure about that.  Their legislature may have been considering it, instead.  Either way, it was ultimately defeated there last year.

But, yes, it is encouraging that it passed the NH House by such a margin.
Title: Re:New Hampshire House passes Jury nullification Act
Post by: freedomroad on June 04, 2003, 04:01:30 am

I think South Dakota may have voted on it as an initiative item, but I'm not sure about that.  Their legislature may have been considering it, instead.  Either way, it was ultimately defeated there last year.


Indeed, South Dakota has tried to do more on this issue than any other state, IMHO.  Here are the results of the statewide vote in SD.

Constitutional Ammendent A: Jury Nullification
YES     23%          NO     77%

Consitutional Ammendment A would have given defendants the right to argue the merits, validity, and applicability of the law they are charged with violating, including drug-sentencing laws. While this second initiative would have impacted more than just drug laws - and was not supported by all drug policy reformers - its proponents were seeking to give jurors veto power over the prosecution of non-violent drug offenders, including medical marijuana patients.

source:
http://www.lindesmith.org/statebystate/election2002/initiatives2002.cfm

"In South Dakota, voters heeded the urging of politicians and judges, and defeated a proposal - backed by drug reformers and others - that would have allowed defendants to tell juries they could disregard a law if they don't like it. Known as jury nullification, and forbidden in every state, the practice would let people accused of crimes argue that a law has no merit or should not apply to their situation."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/nov02/93485.asp?format=print

Quote
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 04, 2003, 09:58:20 pm
I've found a very interesting site which you must see if you are deciding where to move in NH:

http://www.nhes.state.nh.us/elmi/index.html

Click on the "NH LMI Chart Room" under "What's New" and you can see all of the statistics which are available.  The most interesting statistics are contained in a map in the "Unemployment Rates for NH Communities" link.

This NH unemployment map is an absolutely amazing tool.  You can see how the greatest unemployment is in the Hillsborough and Rockingham counties near NH.  Manchester, Portsmouth, and Keene have very low unemployment rates in comparison to the South-Eastern NH/MA border.
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! on the air!
Post by: jgmaynard on June 07, 2003, 12:35:49 pm
FreeStateNHLIVE.com is now listed on Yahoo, AOL Search, Dogpile, and DMOZ, which supplies indexing information to All the Web, AltaVista, Google, USENET, HotBot, Lycos and Northern Light.  

Even a general search for "free live webcams" on Yahoo brings up www.freestatenhlive.com as #38.

If anyone is searching for ANY webcam, they are now likely to come across the Free State Project. :D
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! on the air!
Post by: jgmaynard on June 09, 2003, 08:48:14 am
A war memorial, a meditation retreat, and one of the most beaultiful places you will ever see....

It is Cathedral of the Pines, in Rindge, NH, and it is this weeks "NH Hot Spot of the Week" at:

http://www.freestatenhlive.com

Check it out!

JM
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: robmayn on June 09, 2003, 06:49:23 pm
If NH is chosen, my family will most likely look to Grafton Co.


I probably would as well.  Perhaps I could live there and keep tabs on my computer sales and service shop in Vermont from home via PC Anywhere.

Isn't Dartmoth College somewhere in or near Grafton County?  It seems to me to be a likely candidate for a think tank.  (Something that I would like to involve myself with)
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on June 09, 2003, 07:05:21 pm
Isn't Dartmoth College somewhere in or near Grafton County?  

Yes, Dartmouth is in Hanover, which is in Grafton County.
Title: 101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 10, 2003, 12:10:27 pm
101 Reasons to Vote for New Hampshire as the Free State

Download the full-color report with sources, graphs, charts, and photos:
http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-Vote-NH.pdf

------------------------
Historical Precedent
------------------------

More than 200-year history of independence, small government, and local control...

Just a few of the famous people in NH history:

Josiah Bartlett -
Second signer of the Declaration of Independence

General John Stark - Popularized the "Live Free or Die" state motto. Commanded NH forces in the Revolutionary War

Marilla Ricker - First woman lawyer certified to try cases in front of the Supreme Court and ran for governor - all before women even had the right to vote

John Sullivan- NH's first governor, fought in the Revolutionary War and joined the NH Seacoast uprising at Fort William and Mary in 1774

Matthew Thornton - Signer of the Declaration of Independence - served on the NH court, legislature, and executive council
 
Robert Frost - Won his first of four Pulitzer Prizes with his 1924 volume of poems named "New Hampshire"


#1) Famous spirit of independence and "Live Free or Die" State Motto

For more than 200 years, New Hampshire has held fast to the values of self-reliance, small government, and independence. For its symbolic significance, there is no state more suited to the Free State Project.

The motto was popularized by General John Stark, a New Hampshire citizen and leader in the Revolutionary War, who wrote, "Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils."

#2) The first state to declare itself independent from England in 1774

#3) NH patriots were the first to seize powder and guns from the fort of William and Mary in 1774

On December 14, 1774, more than 400 NH Seacoast-area patriots mobbed the gates of the William and Mary fort following the visit of Paul Revere confirming rumors of English ships and troops on the way. Within hours, the fort was overwhelmed and the patriots made away with 97 barrels of powder later distributed to militias throughout the state as building blocks for the nascent continental army.

#4) New Hampshire was the first state to adopt a revolutionary constitution, 1776

#5) New Hampshire was the first state to hold a constitutional convention, 1778

#6) New Hampshire was the first state to require that its constitution be referred to the people for approval, 1783

The historical precedent set by New Hampshire for the Free State Project is simply unmatched by any other state under consideration. The spirit of independence lives on today.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 10, 2003, 12:10:54 pm
-----------------------------
Constitutional Advantages
-----------------------------

Constitutions are far more difficult to change than statutes; thus, a constitution that limits the power of the legislature provides a more stable basis for both determining the state's liberty orientation and ensuring the ultimate success of the Free State Project.

New Hampshire offers MANY constitutional advantages


#7) New Hampshire's constitution is the ONLY constitution in the WORLD that protects its citizens right to revolution.

Art. 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, 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 doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

#8) New Hampshire's governorship is the weakest of all the states due to our unique, constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances against the power of the governor. The Executive Council holds the distinction of being the first and the last of its kind in the nation. It is a vestige of the Colonial era and a public reminder of the continuing indication of the basic distrust Granite State citizens have for dictatorial government.

Art. 60. [Councilors; Mode of Election, etc.] There shall be biennially elected, by ballot, five councilors, for advising the governor in the executive part of government...

#9) New Hampshire offers the best representation of any state NATIONWIDE with our 400-member House of Representatives.

Art. 9. [Representatives Elected Every Second Year; Apportionment of Representatives.] There shall be in the legislature of this state a house of representatives, biennially elected and founded on principles of equality, and representation therein shall be as equal as circumstances will admit. The whole number of representatives to be chosen from the towns, wards, places, and representative districts thereof established hereunder, shall be not less than three hundred seventy-five or more than four hundred...


#10) New Hampshire offers the best true citizen legislature - a government "of the people" -based on our $100 per year pay to legislators.

Art. 15. [Compensation of the Legislature.] The presiding officers of both houses of the legislature, shall severally receive out of the state treasury as compensation in full for their services for the term elected [two years] the sum of $250, and all other members thereof, seasonably attending and not departing without license, the sum of $200...

Compare the states:

New Hampshire - $200 for 2-year session, no per diem allowed

Maine - $10,815 per year / $38 per day housing / $32 per day meals

Wyoming - $125 per day / $80 per day per diem

Vermont - $536 per week / $50 per day lodging / $36 per day meals

North Dakota - $125 per day plus  $250 month /$650 month lodging

Delaware - $33,400 per year, no per diem allowed

South Dakota - $12,000 for 2-year session / $110 per day per diem

Alaska - $24,012 per year / $161 per day per diem

Montana - $71.83 per day / $58 per day per diem

Idaho - $15,646 per year / $99 per day lodging or $38 per day per diem

More than any other state, New Hampshire's compensation system ensures that its representatives are motivated most strongly by a desire to serve the people. A pay raise would require a Constitutional amendment!


#11) New Hampshire's constitution is one of only two constitutions among the ten states that does not mandate the provision of a public school system.
To abolish government-controlled schools in any other state would require a constitutional amendment.

Alaska (Article 7): "The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State"

Delaware (Article 10): "The General Assembly shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a general and efficient system of free public schools"

Idaho (Article 9): "it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools"

Maine (Article 8 ): "the Legislature are authorized, and it shall be their duty to require, the several towns to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public schools"

Montana (Article 10): "The legislature shall provide a basic system of free quality public elementary and secondary schools"

New Hampshire (Article 83): "it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools"

North Dakota (Article 8 ): "the legislative assembly shall make provision for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools which shall be open to all children of the state of North Dakota"

South Dakota (Article 8 ): "it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all"

Vermont: (Section 68): "a competent number of schools ought to be maintained in each town unless the general assembly permits other provisions for the convenient instruction of youth"

Wyoming (Article 7): "The legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a complete and uniform system of public instruction, embracing free elementary schools of every needed kind and grade"


#12) Some state constitutions, other than New Hampshire's specifically prohibit secession. While this is not a goal of the Free State Project, it could be a critical bargaining chip during negotiations with the federal government.

States specifically prohibiting secession from the federal government:

Wyoming
The State of Wyoming is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

North Dakota
The state of North Dakota is an inseparable part of the American union and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

South Dakota
The State of South Dakota is an inseparable part of the American Union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

Idaho
The state of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

This leaves only six states that can reasonably be considered if we are to take the goals of ending federal mandates seriously: Alaska, Delaware, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 10, 2003, 12:14:19 pm
----------------------------
Political Advantages
----------------------------

From the Free State Project Website:
The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S., where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government.

Doesn't it only make sense to select the state that offers us the most existing political advantages to facilitate the achievement of this goal?

New Hampshire is that state!


#13) If New Hampshire is chosen it will mean having a FREE STATE PROJECT MEMBER ALREADY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES!

It's true! At least one FSP member is already a member of the New Hampshire legislature. By choosing New Hampshire, we gain a head start on achieving the FSP goal of electing members to office to work within the political system in order to reduce the size and scope of government!


#14) If New Hampshire is chosen it will mean having a LIBERTARIAN AND FREE STATE PROJECT MEMBER ALREADY APPOINTED TO AN OFFICIAL POSITION BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE!

Again, it's true! John Babiarz, chair of the LPNH and FSP member, has been appointed by Governor Benson to the Efficiency in Government Commission, a commission formed to streamline and downsize New Hampshire state government. By choosing New Hampshire, we clearly gain a head start on reducing the size and scope of government!!


#15) If New Hampshire is chosen it will mean having LIBERTY-MINDED FRIENDS IN THE EXISTING NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGISLATURE.

At least several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives have attended Free State Project meetings and publicly voiced support for the Free State Project coming to New Hampshire. Free State Project members and the political activity they bring will be welcome in New Hampshire!


#16) New Hampshire's Governor Benson is receptive to the Free State Project and has been gracious in his agreement to meet with FSP members. Governor Benson is a friend of the Libertarians, even scheduled as a speaker at the LPNH 2003 Convention.

Compare this to the less than enthusiastic response other state governors and officials have given us when they have learned of the Free State Project:

Mark Snider, spokesman for Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, said he was sorry to learn that Idaho was a candidate state. ... "It does not sound as though this group is in line with what the majority of Idahoans want."

Chuck Butler, a spokesman for Montana Gov. Judy Martz, said Montana is a huge state that welcomes newcomers. But he encouraged the Free Staters to take a closer look at Idaho. "Idaho is more inviting," Butler said.

And the mayor of Burlington VT (in the NPR interview & report) suggested the FSP look across the Connecticut River to New Hampshire as the place to locate.


#17) In New Hampshire, the FSP will even have a friendly reception from many in the major parties. The Chair of the New Hampshire GOP, Jayne Millerick, was welcoming to the Free State Project and indicated that the group would be happy with the political activity in the state. From a Stateline.org article:

"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."


#18) New Hampshire offers the critical advantage of allowing fusion candidates. A fusion candidate is defined as one who has been nominated by two or more parties, and appears on the general ballot with all parties noted.
The advantage is absolutely essential to our success. It means the ability to run as a Libertarian-Republican or even as a Libertarian-Republican-Democrat, capturing all of the straight-ticket votes.

How successful is this strategy in New Hampshire? In the 2002 election, 59 seats of 400, or 15% of the House, was won with fusion!  Every single fusion candidate on the general ballot won!  In 1992, 2 Libertarians won seats using just this method.

Fusion is BANNED in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, Alaska, and Maine.


#19) In New Hampshire you have the opportunity to completely OVERHAUL THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES every other year as we are one of only two states to run elections on the biennial cycle.


#20) The New Hampshire voter population makeup hints at its citizens' spirit of independence and a dissatisfaction with major parties; a huge potential opportunity for a third party - Approximately 37% are registered Republicans and 27% are registered Democrats but a full 36% are registered Independents.


#21) Geographically, New Hampshire is the perfect size to optimize and facilitate campaigns. 180 miles long and 50 miles wide with an extreme width of 93 miles, within a matter of hours you can reach any corner of the state by car. Contrast this with some of the large western states. To effectively execute a statewide campaign in one of these states, an airplane would be necessary - an expense that our competitors may be able to afford, but one that will not be an option for most FSP candidates.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 10, 2003, 12:16:14 pm
Political Advantages Part 2

#22) New Hampshire offers smaller, easier to canvass, more winnable districts than any other state under consideration.

New Hampshire offers the smallest districts in the NATION.

Small districts guarantee success! If the goal of the Free State Project is to WIN and to work WITHIN THE POLITICAL SYSTEM, small districts far outweigh population arguments.

New Hampshire districts are small enough that the candidates get to know their constituents personally, in many districts, you can walk from one end to another in less than in an hour, and seats are often won with no more than a couple-hundred-dollar campaign budgets.

Remember, New Hampshire has the largest legislature of any state or province in any country in the WORLD. With our 400-member House, every legislator represents very few constituents. In some districts, candidates need as few as 700 votes to win! Even multi-seat districts are easy to win - re-read advantage #18 - the ability to run fusion candidates.

Compare NH to the number of constituents represented in each of the other nine states:

Vermont - 5,609
Wyoming - 8,317
Maine - 8,570
Montana - 9,090
North Dakota - 13,489
Alaska - 16,100
Delaware - 19,683
South Dakota - 21,743
Idaho - 38,314

New Hampshire is CLEARLY the state to choose! Even more encouraging is that redistricting that will enhance this advantage further is almost certain to happen during summer 2003.


#23) New Hampshire has a long tradition of local control through town meetings.

Town meetings in New Hampshire and other New England states are probably the most direct access to government given to citizens in America.

Though town meetings such as this are unfamiliar to many from other parts of the nation, in NH these meetings have deep idealogical roots and reflect our commitment to local control. Topics covered in town meetings are diverse and the meetings themselves are often quite lively. Since Colonial times they have given citizens, not their representatives, the ability to participate directly in the making of their laws and the raising and spending of taxes.

The New Hampshire Constitution even prohibits unfunded state mandates, providing a check upon state control and ensuring that decision-making remains with the local jurisdictions.

What better atmosphere could there be for FSP members to begin repealing unwanted government intrusion, to demonstrate that our ideas are viable, and to create pockets of freedom on a local level to act as statewide and nationwide examples of the benefits of freedom?  


#24) New Hampshire has the smallest state and local government sectors among the ten states:

1. New Hampshire
2. Delaware
3. South Dakota
4. North Dakota
5. Wyoming
6. Idaho
7. Alaska, Vermont
9. Maine
10. Montana


#25) New Hampshire has the lowest percentage of government employees among the ten states:

1. New Hampshire
2. South Dakota
3. Delaware
4. North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Maine (tie)
8. Vermont
9. Alaska
10. Wyoming


#26) New Hampshire and Idaho have the lowest percentage of NEA/AFT members among the ten states:

1. Idaho, New Hampshire (tie)
3. South Dakota
4. Wyoming, Delaware (tie)
6. North Dakota
7. Maine
8. Vermont
9. Montana
10. Alaska


#27) New Hampshire is actively seeking to reduce the size and scope of government, cut costs, and improve efficiency.

SOUND FAMILIAR?

As the first bill he signed into law, New Hampshire's Governor Benson established the Efficiency in Government Commission - appointing LPNH chair, John Babiarz to pinpoint ways the state could streamline operations, create new efficiencies, and save taxpayers money.

According to Tim Condon, FSP board member, there are five critical reforms needed within the states in order to achieve the aim of creating a truly free political entity. This is the first of these reforms - an office of government downsizing - that are already part of the New Hampshire political system.
Governor Benson also has a sense of humor that advocates of limited government everywhere can appreciate:

"TAX ME MORE"
A special account for those who want to pay higher taxes

CONCORD, March 6, 2003 - Today Governor Craig Benson announced that he is setting up a special "Tax Me More" account for those who feel that their taxes aren't high enough.

"The voters spoke loud and clear last November: No income tax, no sales tax, no tax increases, no way. I have put forward the first budget in a long time that controls spending and lowers taxes. But every now and then I hear someone wants to spend more money or raise some tax," said Benson. "I can certainly respect a difference of opinion and I want to accommodate those who feel that their taxes aren't high enough. That's why I am setting up the 'Tax Me More' account for those people who want to pay more in taxes."

Anyone wishing to pay higher taxes can make their checks payable to "The State of NH / Tax Me More Account" and mail their checks to Administrative Services, Room 120, Statehouse Annex, Concord, NH, 03301.

All voluntary tax payments should be accompanied by the "Tax Me More" tax form. Copies of the form are available the Governor's Customer Service Department and can be obtained by calling (603) 271-7626.


#28) New Hampshire has a long tradition of transparency in the legislative and executive branches.

According to Tim Condon, FSP board member, there are five critical reforms needed within the states in order to achieve the aim of creating a truly free political entity. Total legislative transparency is the second of these reforms that are already part of the New Hampshire political system and culture.
By choosing New Hampshire we gain a large advantage, far ahead of any of the other nine states.

91-A:1 Preamble. Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people.

II. All public proceedings shall be open to the public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meetings of these bodies or agencies... no vote while in open session may be taken by secret ballot. Any person shall be per-mitted to use recording devices, including but not limited to, tape recorders, cameras and video-tape equipment, at such meetings. Minutes of all such meetings, including names of members, persons appearing before the bodies or agencies, and a brief description of the subject matter discussed and final decisions, shall be promptly recorded and open to public inspection within 144 hours of the public meeting...

In New Hampshire, all state business is conducted and voted in public. Meeting minutes and all public records are freely available and easily accessible, many on the state website. If a citizen is unable to travel to the State House to sit in on legislative sessions, it is easy to listen in by streaming audio as provided on the state website. No other state enjoys such open accountability between its Executive and Legislative departments and its citizens.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 10, 2003, 12:17:01 pm
Political Advantages Part 3

#29) New Hampshire is well known for our first-in-the-nation primaries that will provide the FSP with UNMATCHED leverage in the national debate.

Once we begin winning state- and local-level offices in New Hampshire we will add real strength to liberty-oriented national candidates at primary and debate time. The benefits of liberty and freedom will be broadcast to the nation and the world in an unprecedented way. Like-minded advocates of small government all over the U.S. would finally have a roadmap and example to follow.

If our goal is to serve as an example - eventually expanding true liberty past the Free State borders - there is no better state to choose than New Hampshire.


#30) New Hampshire offers the best chance to achieve clean elections.

100% of New Hampshire's votes are recorded on paper ballots and 60% of NH municipalities count them by hand. Counting takes place at the precinct, beginning immediately after the polls close, and in full view of the public. No other candidate state offers these protections. NH is the only one of the ten states in which counting fraud can be prevented.


#31) In New Hampshire, education is mostly funded at the local level.

With the exception of the $5.80 statewide property tax, all education funding is raised at the local level, reflecting New Hampshire's long tradition of local control and education decision-making. FSP members will appreciate and find many allies among NH citizens who deeply believe that much as small government is better, closer government is better.

Also noteworthy and of interest to FSP members should be the Governor's new plan that cuts this statewide tax in half, to $3.00, over the next five years.


#32) New Hampshire is the state with the best chance of ending the government monopoly on the school system.

Although education is mostly funded at the local level, not too long ago it was ALL funded at the local level. The current system was created with the highly unpopular Claremont decision handed down by the Supreme Court. No issue unites the citizens of New Hampshire quite so much as the disgust over the school-funding situation. There is an enormous opportunity right now for any political movement to promote a workable solution to the school funding situation and END public schooling in those towns that wish to do so.


#33) New Hampshire local elections are mostly nonpartisan.

This offers and excellent opportunity for FSP members to focus on the message rather than the political label, win local offices, and demonstrate first hand, the benefits of liberty. The LPNH has clearly demonstrated this advantage by electing more Libertarians to office than any other state in the NATION.


#34) Almost across the board, New Hampshire-region newspapers and television stations have been receptive of and fair to the Free State Project - in front-page feature articles, special television news segments, event coverage, radio interviews, editorials, and letters to the editor. Many thousands of New Hampshire citizens and the citizens of neighboring states have learned about the Free State Project in a positive way thanks to reporters from the Union Leader, Channel 9, WBZ-TV, Tiger Radio, Boston Globe, and other media outlets.


#35) New Hampshire does not suffer from the unfortunate and unfair characterization by the media that many of the western states have been subjected to. If our goal is to establish a beachhead of freedom that will serve as an example of freedom to the rest of the nation and world, New Hampshire is the best choice. If we choose a western state we run a serious risk of immediately being stigmatized by the media.


#36) New Hampshire voters will not be as influenced by federal government farm subsidies as they will be in other states. The influence in New Hampshire will be negligible while the influence in many of the western states could be disastrous. Farm subsidies on a per capita basis in North Dakota are 824% higher than in New Hampshire. Alaska is the only one of the ten states with lower farm subsidies than New Hampshire.

Total farm subsidies:

     $98,000  Alaska
  $1,329,000  New Hampshire
  $4,088,000  Maine
  $4,396,000  Vermont
 $18,069,000  Wyoming
 $23,520,000  Delaware
$152,736,000  Idaho
$205,929,000  Montana
$572,483,000  North Dakota
$575,744,000  South Dakota

Per capita farm subsidies:

  $0.16    Alaska
  $1.08    New Hampshire
  $3.21    Maine
  $7.22    Vermont
 $30.02    Delaware
 $36.59    Wyoming
$118.07    Idaho
$228.25    Montana
$762.73    South Dakota
$891.44    North Dakota


#37) The bulk of the nation's population is concentrated east of the Mississippi. By going where the population is we have the opportunity to establish a credible, mainstream political movement and beachhead in the fight for freedom. By choosing a western state we run the risk of immediately isolating and stigmatizing the movement.


#38) New Hampshire offers a broad-based, dynamic economy with growth potential and many strengths.

The reality is that it will take money to achieve success with the Free State Project. Yes, any libertarian state will eventually grow and thrive, but how long can members wait for that to happen? If jobs are scarce in the first few years, if money is tight, and if it is difficult to support a family, how long will it be before we begin losing activists to reality? For success, it is essential that we choose a state where our members will thrive economically from the start and be able to immediately begin working for and contributing toward the achievement of FSP goals.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 10, 2003, 12:18:03 pm
---------------------------------  
Advantages of a
Freedom-Oriented Culture
---------------------------------

The native political culture of the state is vitally important. Because New Hampshire is oriented toward liberty already, consistently voting for smaller, less intrusive government, it will be much easier for the Free State Project to introduce reforms and to live as neighbors with the native citizens of the state. New Hampshire indisputably has the leanest, most efficient government combined with strong, inherent values of self-reliance and personal responsibility. It is a state in which libertarians will feel at home.


#39) Unlike any other state, New Hampshire has a history of electing and re-electing Libertarians to office.

In 1991, New Hampshire state legislators Cal Warburton and Finlay Rothhaus resigned from the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party. In 1992, Warburton and Rothhaus were re-elected and Libertarians Don Gorman and Andy Borsa were elected to the House of Representatives.


#40) In New Hampshire's 1992 presidential primary election, Libertarian Andre Marrou beat incumbent President George Bush in Dixville Notch, the first town to vote in the nation.


#41) New Hampshire has the highest number of elected Libertarians among the ten candidate states.

New Hampshire - 28
Vermont - 18
Maine - 7
Idaho - 3
Delaware - 2
South Dakota - 1
Wyoming - 1
Alaska - 1
Montana - 0
North Dakota - 0


#42) New Hampshire has the highest per capita of elected and appointed Libertarians in the nation.


#43) New Hampshire has the highest density of Libertarian Party members in the nation. Per one million population, New Hampshire has:

314% more Libertarians than South Dakota
289% more Libertarians than North Dakota
164% more Libertarians than Delaware
110% more Libertarians than Montana
97% more Libertarians than Idaho
92% more Libertarians than Maine
64% more Libertarians than Wyoming
23% more Libertarians than Vermont
10% more Libertarians than Alaska


#44) There is a large contingency of liberty-minded Republicans in the New Hampshire legislative and executive branches. These individuals consistently vote to reduce spending, cut programs, lower taxes, and repeal intrusive laws. These individuals have even indicated that they WANT a Libertarian caucus at the State House so they can push their agenda through.


#45) New Hampshire has grassroots freedom-oriented groups springing up statewide. New Hampshire even has a visible presence of active anarchists in the state.


#46) New Hampshirites HATE TAXES.

At every opportunity, New Hampshire citizens vote to cut taxes lower and lower. The mere mention of introducing new taxes is death to the career of politicians in New Hampshire. This vigilance is the primary reason that New Hampshire citizens enjoy the lowest taxes as a percentage of gross income NATIONWIDE. NH citizens receive their tax bills in one lump property tax that provides for an extraordinarily tax-aware electorate that applauds all efforts to lower taxes. In New Hampshire, you keep more of the money you earn.


#47) New Hampshire has NO GENERAL INCOME TAX. (DE 5.95%, ID 7.8%, ME 8.5%, MT 6.75%, ND 5.54%)


#48) New Hampshire has NO SALES TAX. (ID 5%, ME 5%, ND 5%, SD 4%, WY 4%)


#49) New Hampshire has NO CAPITAL GAINS TAX. (DE 5.95%, ID 3.12%, ME 8.5%, MT 8.8%, ND 5.5%)


#50) New Hampshire has NO INVENTORY TAX. (AK does)


#51) New Hampshire has NO TAX ON MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT. (AK, ID, ME, MT, ND, and WY all do)


#52) New Hampshire offers the lowest dependence on federal dollars among the ten candidate states and is the fourth lowest in the nation!

The amount of money that the state gets back for every $1 paid in federal taxes:

$0.71 New Hampshire
$0.86 Delaware
$1.12 Vermont
$1.14 Wyoming
$1.24 Idaho
$1.31 Maine
$1.50 South Dakota
$1.63 Alaska
$1.67 Montana
$1.95 North Dakota

States that receive more from the central government than they pay in taxes are less likely to seek fiscal autonomy or sovereignty. New Hampshire is the clear choice. It is one of only two candidate states that receives a NEGATIVE amount and is 135% LESS dependent on federal dollars than Montana and 61% LESS dependent on federal dollars than Wyoming.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 10, 2003, 12:18:57 pm
Advantages of a freedom-oriented culture Part 2

#53) New Hampshire is SECOND ONLY TO VERMONT for offering the least restrictive gun laws among the ten candidate states. Open carry (no permit necessary) is allowed in all but courtrooms and CCW permits are provided on a "shall issue" basis - no fingerprints, photos, or special training required as in other states. Obtaining a non-resident CCW permit in New Hampshire is easy.


#54) New Hampshire is the ONLY state among the ten candidates and one of only four states NATIONWIDE that believes in the saying: "Let those that ride decide." NEW HAMPSHIRE PLACES NO HELMET RESTRICTIONS ON MOTORCYCLISTS.
 

#55) New Hampshire is the ONLY state among the ten candidate states - the ONLY STATE NATIONWIDE  -that DOES NOT HAVE A MANDATORY SEATBELT LAW.


#56) New Hampshire is the ONLY state among the ten candidate states and one of only five states NATIONWIDE that DOES NOT HAVE A MANDATORY AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE LAW.   


#57) New Hampshire offers the LOWEST federal, state, and local government spending as a percentage of gross state product among the ten candidate states.

7.7%  New Hampshire
9.2%  DE - 19% higher than NH
12.7% SD - 65% higher than NH
13%   VT - 69% higher than NH
13.1% ID - 70% higher than NH
13.4% WY - 74% higher than NH
14.1% ME - 83% higher than NH
14.4% ND - 87% higher than NH
16.5% MT - 114% higher than NH
19.1% AK - 148% higher than NH


#58) New Hampshire offers the LOWEST state and local government spending as a percentage of gross state product among the ten candidate states.

6.2% New Hampshire
6.9% DE - 11% higher than NH
8.3% SD - 34% higher than NH
9.1% ND - 47% higher than NH
9.4% WY - 52% higher than NH
9.5% ID - 53% higher than NH
9.7% AK - 56% higher than NH
9.7% VT - 56% higher than NH
9.8% ME - 58% higher than NH
10.8% MT - 74% higher than NH

#59) New Hampshire offers the SMALLEST state budget per capita of all the ten candidate states.

$927  per capita New Hampshire
$1,123  SD - 21% more than NH
$1,274  WY - 37% more than NH
$1,280  ND - 38% more than NH
$1,422  VT - 53% more than NH
$1,499  MT - 62% more than NH
$1,499  ID - 62% more than NH
$2,008 ME - 117% more than NH
$3,738 AK - 303% more than NH
$8,082 DE - 772% more than NH


#60) New Hampshire is the only state in the nation that has had a jury nullification bill passed by the House twice (though killed in the Senate) - this most recent time (May 2003) by a margin of 220-147. Although juries in New Hampshire have the right to find a defendant not guilty even if the prosecutor has proved his case, judges do not always notify juries of this right (although it is implied in the current instructions). The bill would have required judges to include this right in instructions to juries.


#61) New Hampshire is one of the few states that does not regulate raw milk sales. Want to buy milk from the farm down the road? No problem in New Hampshire. Raw milk sales are illegal in Wyoming, Montana, Delaware, and North Dakota.


#62) New Hampshire has a large, politically active, and rapidly growing homeschooling population. In 1987 there was believed to be approximately 346 homeschooled children in NH. By 2001, that figure had grown exponentially to over 3,600 (as reported to the Dept. of Ed.).


#63) By a huge lead, almost double its nearest competitor, New Hampshire has the highest number of FSP members per 1,000 population.

NH      0.092544955
MT      0.05387854
AK      0.043492713
DE      0.043349827
ID      0.034299408
WY      0.034088425
VT      0.022705452
SD      0.019709275
ND      0.017347148
ME      0.016222931

Perhaps a strong indication of native sentiment?
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 10, 2003, 12:19:36 pm
------------------------------------
Economic & Employment Advantages
------------------------------------

New Hampshire is a state in which the highest possible percentage of Free State Project members will be able to find employment in their chosen professions, start or grow businesses in an already thriving economy, bring home a higher income than any other state, and keep more of that income because of New Hampshire's lowest-in-the-nation taxes as a percentage of that income.
By choosing New Hampshire we ensure the success of FSP by minimizing the chance of "dropouts" based on economic reasons and enabling immediate ability for FSP members to concentrate on political activism rather than concerns about how they will support their family.


#64) New Hampshire offers the lowest taxes as a percentage of gross income NATIONWIDE.

#1 NH    4.54%    1st in nation
#2 SD    5.05%    2nd in nation
#3 MT    7.26%    28th in nation
#4 WY    7.61%    31st in nation
#5 ND    7.94%    34th in nation
#6 AK    8.04%    36th in nation
#7 ID    8.32%    39th in nation
#8 ME    8.63%    43rd in nation
#9 DE    9.19%    47th in nation
#10 VT    9.57%    48th in nation


#65) New Hampshire is the highest ranked state among the ten, offering the most dynamic economy. For FSP members, that means a broader-based economy, more business opportunties, diverse job opportunities, and lots of consumer choices.

Ranking against 50:

New Hampshire = 25
Idaho = 29
Maine = 32
Vermont = 36
South Dakota = 38
Alaska = 39
Delaware = 43
Montana = 45
Wyoming = 47
North Dakota = 50


#66) New Hampshire is ranked 3rd in the NATION and #1 among the ten states for the having the highest percentage of high-tech jobs. The high-tech sector in New Hampshire is growing to 300% the U.S. average of employment concentration. According to the FSP board, a high percentage of the FSP membership work in the high-tech industry. Wyoming ranks dead last NATIONWIDE. How can we not choose New Hampshire?

Ranked against 50:

NH = 3
VT = 13
ID = 14
SD = 22
DE = 32
ME = 34
MT = 38
ND = 40
AK = 44
WY = 50


#67) New Hampshire is ranked #1 among the ten candidate states for offering the highest percentage of knowledge jobs.

Ranked against 50:

NH = 8
DE = 13
ME = 17
MT = 24
AK = 27
ID = 28
VT = 37
SD = 38
ND = 40
WY = 45

#68) New Hampshire is ranked 4th in the NATION and #1 among the candidate states for the highest dollar amount of venture capital invested in the state. With the strong economy and growth potential, funding businesses in New Hampshire is a winning investment. New Hampshire is a superb state for starting or growing a small business.

As ranked against 50:

NH = 4
ME = 20
DE = 26
VT = 29
MT = 33
ID = 41
AK = 46
SD = 48
ND = 49
WY = 49


#69) New Hampshire is friendly to small businesses and nurturing of entrepreneurs. New Hampshire is frequently in the top 10 in nationwide listings, for offering a business-friendly environment. In a recent Microsoft bCentral ranking, New Hampshire was listed as being "close behind" the TOP 10, with ME, MT, and ND listed among the BOTTOM 10. The SBSC index, which includes a measure of entrepreneurial activity within the state also lists NH among the TOP 10. SD and WY also listed highly in this ranking.


#70) New Hampshire is second only to DE for the highest Research & Development (R&D) expenditures in the state.

R&D expenditures in millions:

#1 DE  $2,556
#2 NH $1,340
#3 ID $1,120
#4 MT $191
#5 VT $175
#6 ME $157
#7 ND $119
#8 WY $65
#9 SD $60
#10 AK unknown

Investment in R&D is 2133% higher in New Hampshire than in South Dakota and 1962% higher in New Hampshire than in Wyoming.


#71) New Hampshire is second only to ID for highest number of new patents coming from the state.

#1 ID 987
#2 NH 649
#3 DE 422
#4 VT 343
#5 MT 149
#6 ME 143
#7 AK 76
#8 ND 69
#9 SD 57
#10 WY 49

The number of new patents coming from New Hampshire businesses and citizens is 1224% higher than in Wyoming and 1039% higher than in South Dakota.


#72) New Hampshire offers the HIGHEST PER CAPITA INCOME of the ten candidate states. That income has also had the HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF GROWTH over the past 22 years.

Ranked in current descending order:

New Hampshire
$9,150 - 1980
$34,334 - 2002
275% - Increase

Delaware
$10,059 - 1980
$32,779 - 2002
226% - Increase

Alaska
$13,007 - 1980
$32,151 - 2002
147% - Increase

Wyoming
$11,018 - 1980
$30,578 - 2002
178% - Increase

Vermont
$7,957 - 1980
$29,567 - 2002
272% - Increase

Maine
$7,760 - 1980
$27,744 - 2002
258% - Increase

North Dakota
$8,642 - 1980
$26,982 - 2002
212% - Increase

South Dakota
$7,800 - 1980
$26,566 - 2002
241% - Increase

Idaho
$8,105 - 1980
$25,057 - 2002
209% - Increase

Montana
$8,342 - 1980
$25,020 - 2002
200% - Increase


#73) New Hampshire is second only to Alaska for offering the lowest poverty rates. Besides the obvious economic advantage of this measure, it also indicates a lower percentage of possible opponents based on reliance on public assistance.

#1 Alaska - 7th in nation
#2 New Hampshire - 10th in nation
#3 Vermont - 13th in nation
#4 Delaware - 15th in nation
#5 Maine - 17th in nation
#6 South Dakota - 27th in nation
#7 Wyoming - 29th in nation
#8 North Dakota - 38th in nation
#9 Idaho - 39th in nation
#10 Montana - 45th in nation


#74) New Hampshire is second only to ID for the number of new jobs forecast, 2000-2010.


#75) New Hampshire holds the coveted 10th spot in the Milken Institute's 2001 New Economy Index ranking states on how well they are positioned to take advantage of growth in technology-driven industries.

DE - 8th in nation
NH - 10th in nation
VT - 23rd in nation
ID - 29th in nation
AK - 34th in nation
MT - 36th in nation
ME - 43rd in nation
ND - 45th in nation
WY - 46th in nation
SD - 49th in nation


#76) New Hampshire cities have been mentioned multiple times in Money Magazine 's "The Best Places to Live in America" ranking.

* Nashua rated #1 as the "Best Place to Live in America" in Money Magazine's 1997 and 1987 rankings.

* Nashua is the only #1 rated city to ever take the title twice.

* Manchester rated #1 as the "Best Place to Live in America" in Money Magazine's 1998 ranking.

* Nashua rated as #3 "Best Small City in the Northeast" in Money Magazine's 1998 ranking.

* Nashua rated in top 20 out of 300 "Best Places to Live in America" in 1995, 1994. Nashua rated in top 6 out of 300 three times in the last 10 years.

* Nashua frequently listed among Money Magazine's "Five Best Places to Live in New England."


#77) New Hampshire is surpassed only by WY as the 2nd state most tax friendly to businesses in the nation.

WY #1 in the nation
NH #2 in the nation
AK #5 in the nation
SD #6 in the nation
DE #15 in the nation
VT #20 in the nation
MT #22 in the nation
ND #32 in the nation
ID #33 in the nation
ME #43 in the nation


#78) New Hampshire's core industries and leading industries in terms of growth are ones that will ensure that a majority of FSP members will find employment in areas familiar to them - major career changes will be unnecessary.

NH Core Industries:

Electronics, Health Services, Engineering and Management Services

NH High-Growth Industries:

Electronic Components, Commercial Physical Research, Printed Circuit Boards, Computer Programming and Related Services, and Analytical Instruments


#79) New Hampshire's current unemployment rate (4.0) is a full 2 percentage points lower than national average (6.0) - April 2003


#80) New Hampshire offers 5 FREE TRADE ZONES, including those at Manchester Airport and the Port of NH. Free trades zones, also known as foreign trade zones, help companies avoid high tariffs when importing or exporting goods. The savings increase the company's cash flow - creating more jobs and boosting the economy.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 10, 2003, 12:20:15 pm
------------------------------
Geographic Advantages
------------------------------

Nestled as it is, in the political and economic hub of America, yet a holdout among more statist neighbors, New Hampshire is famous for her independence, small government values, and freedom-oriented culture. New Hampshire has become a haven for freedom-lovers nationwide and will welcome the political activism and ideals of the Free State Project. With both a coastal and international border, diverse terrain, a geographic size optimal for FSP purposes, abundant water resources, and ability to draw small government activists from the more populous eastern states, as well as nationwide, New Hampshire is the perfect choice as the FSP state.


#81) New Hampshire offers a coastal border for access to ports and harbors to facilitate trade in markets outside the U.S.

The only other candidate states to share this advantage are Maine, Delaware, and Alaska.


#82 New Hampshire offers a border with Canada for facilitating international trade.


#83) New Hampshire offers the opportunity to expand into two neighboring states that are current FSP candidates - Vermont and Maine.  

While the advantage of this may not be immediately important, the ultimate goal of the FSP is to act as an example of the benefits of liberty so that the freedoms we will enjoy will spread to other states and the world. By choosing New Hampshire we ensure that our two closest neighbors are states that have been serious contenders during the selection of the Free State and that would have better than average odds to become free themselves.


#84) New Hampshire offers easy access to the seacoast, lakes, rivers, mountains, and forests.  No matter where you are in the state or where you want to go, you are never more than a two or three hour drive away. New Hampshire is an incredibly diverse state with an incredibly diverse terrain.


#85) New Hampshire offers reasonable commute time, by rail, bus, or car, to major metropolitan areas in surrounding states.

While New Hampshire's largest cities - Concord (pop. 40,687), Derry (pop. 34,012), Manchester (pop. 107,006), and Nashua (pop. 86,605) are thriving metropolitan areas with all the culture and amenities of larger cities, without the related congestion and overdensity (Manchester is the most dense with 3,238 persons per square mile), the ability to quickly and easily travel to Boston and other cities, whether for work or pleasure, will be enjoyed by many.
 

#86) New Hampshire's relatively small geographic size will facilitate activism statewide and make frequent collaboration and meetings between FSP members easier. This vital level of activism and collaboration would be impossible in many of the larger states.


#87) A significantly smaller percentage of New Hampshire's territory is owned by the federal government than many of the leading western states.

NH=12.8
MT=28.8
WY=45.9
ID=62.7
AK=67

Smaller percentages of federally owned land mean greater control over the state's territory by citizens. It is likely that states with less federally owned land will experience less resistance and interference from the federal government as we seek an end to federal mandates.


#88) With the majority of the nation's population east of the Mississippi, New Hampshire offers a large population from nearby states to draw freedom-lovers from in order to reach and exceed our 20,000 goal.


#89) With its nearness to denser-population states, for a majority of current and future FSP members, a move to New Hampshire will be less disruptive and require less life-altering changes to relocate than many other states under consideration. A move to New Hampshire makes it more likely that we will meet and exceed our goal of attracting 20,000 activists.


#90) New Hampshire is home to the tallest mountain in the Northeast, Mt. Washington, affording 100-mile views of three states and Canada.


#91) Unlike some states, New Hampshire offers abundant water resources. The potential for water shortages in NH are much less than in some other candidate states. There are actually serious concerns over a water shortage crisis in some of the western states, combined with some state constitutions that declare all water resources in the states to be state property. This is not a concern in New Hampshire.

From Wyoming:
97-8-001.  Water is state property.
The water of all natural streams, springs, lakes or other collections of still water, within the boundaries of the state, are hereby declared to be the property of the state.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 10, 2003, 12:20:52 pm
-----------------------------------
Quality of Life Advantages
-----------------------------------

Consistently ranked among the top of all states nationwide for "Quality of Life and Livability," for having the "Least Overall Violent and Property Crimes in the Nation," for cities that are the "Best Places to Live in America," and among the top of the "Healthiest States in the Nation," New Hampshire is the unsurpassed first choice for those who understand that quality of life will play a primary role in ensuring the ongoing commitment of FSP activists. Add to this, New Hampshire's diverse communities, breathtaking scenic beauty, cultural offerings, and hundreds of four-season recreational options and you have a clear winner.  


#92) New Hampshire is #1 among the ten candidates and #3 in the NATION as ranked for quality of life and livability by Morgan Quitno Press, 2003.

New Hampshire - 3rd in nation
Vermont - 7th in nation
South Dakota - 8th in nation
Wyoming - 14th in nation
Maine - 16th in nation
North Dakota - 17th in nation
Delaware - 18th in nation
Idaho - 20th in nation
Montana - 21st in nation
Alaska - 32nd in nation


#93) New Hampshire is a state with breathtaking beauty and scenery - the ocean, lakes, mountains, forests, rivers, picturesque New England towns, covered bridges, historical homes - New Hampshire has it all.


#94) Based on FBI figures, New Hampshire has the least overall crime in the NATION as of 2001. According to Morgan Quitno Press, which uses FBI figures in conjunction with other factors, New Hampshire has been the second safest state in the nation for 5 consecutive years and has been in the top 6 since the award was first given in 1994.


#95) New Hampshire is the 2nd healthiest state in the NATION, surpassed only by Vermont.

Vermont- 1st in nation
New Hampshire - 2nd in nation
Maine - 7th in nation
North Dakota - 10th in nation
South Dakota - 13th in nation
Montana - 18th in nation
Wyoming - 20th in nation
Idaho - 21st in nation
Alaska - 36th in nation
Delaware - 38th in nation


#96) New Hampshire offers 17 accredited private senior colleges and universities to choose from. This is surpassed only by Maine.

Number of in-state colleges and universities:

Maine - 19
New Hampshire - 17
Vermont - 16
South Dakota - 16
Montana - 9
North Dakota - 9
Idaho - 6
Alaska - 6
Delaware - 5
Wyoming - 1


#97) Air transportation to and from New Hampshire is facilitated by 23 commercial airports and 79 landing areas throughout the state. Passenger rail service has been recently added to New Hampshire's transportation options.


#98) Throughout New Hampshire, in every region, there are numerous cultural offerings not always easily found or within convenient driving distance in other states - science, historical, and art museums, theme parks, symphonies, concert centers, art galleries, performing art theaters, antique shows, agricultural fairs, and much more.


#99) New Hampshire offers modern, extensive cellular and Internet infrastructures and statewide access to low-cost, high-speed Internet.


#100) New Hampshire offers extraordinary recreation opportunities and choices. NH is a mecca for hunting and fishing as the state has more than 500 species of vertebrate animals, including black bear, coyote, bobcats, moose, white-tailed deer, and beaver, and fishing options that include deep-sea, river, and lake fishing.

Spectacular fall foliage brings millions of dollars in tourist revenue to the state.

Excellent four-season sporting opportunities include thousands of miles of hiking and biking trails, boating on our lakes, rivers, and the ocean, mountain climbing, skiing, snowboarding, camping, ATV riding, snowmobiling, and much more.


#101) New Hampshire offers an incredibly diverse mix of communities. Whether your ideal home is oceanside, lakefront, mountainside, or riverside, New Hampshire offers you the ideal spot.

Whether you desire a thriving metropolitan area, a quaint New England town, a large acreage homestead, or an isolated cabin deep in the forest, you will find it in New Hampshire. There is a place in New Hampshire where almost every FSP member will feel welcome, comfortable, and at home.

Of New Hampshire's 234 municipalities:

55 have a population under 1,000
67 have a population between 1,000 - 2,500
53 have a population between 2,500 - 5,000
23 have a population between 5,000 - 7,500
8 have a population between 7,500 - 10,000
13 have a population between 10,000 - 15,000
7 have a population between 15,000 - 25,000
8 have a population over 25,000

16 have a population per square mile of 10 or less
28 have a population per square mile of 11-25
41 have a population per square mile of 26-50
33 have a population per square mile of 51-75
12 have a population per square mile of 76-100
46 have a population per square mile of 101-200
12 have a population per square mile of 201-300
46 have a population per square mile of 301-500
21 have a population per square mile of 501-1000
8 have a population per square mile of over 1000

New Hampshire's most dense city is Manchester which is 3,238.7. New Hampshire's least dense town has a population per square mile of 1.9.
Title: The Great Granite State
Post by: benny on June 10, 2003, 12:53:48 pm
You know, I have been leaning to NH, then WY, and back and forth for some time.  I think this has convinced me to go with NH.  

True, on the numbers, WY may have better chance for success, but the little things, the quality of life things, are very important (nagging little taxes, nanny laws like seatbelts/helmets). This piece makes me wish that I lived in NH today.  You add in the jobs, an important factor for yuppies like me, and there's no contest.

I'll go wherever, but NH is getting my #1 vote.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Karl on June 10, 2003, 01:25:28 pm
Agreed, this is an excellent list, thanks for posting it.  I hope that some version of this list gets sent out with the ballots.

And the PDF is snazzy!  WOW!  The folks at LPNH really give the impression they know what they're doing!
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Hank on June 10, 2003, 01:41:09 pm
Quote
True, on the numbers, WY may have better chance for success, but the little things, the quality of life things, are very important

Is this the Free State Project?
(if it is, then you'll choose the state that Free Staters have the best chance at making totally a Free State with the entire Free State agenda)

Or is this the beaches and great jobs project?

If you want warm beaches, country clubs, a rural pastoral setting next to all the wonderful benefits of a great metropolitan area -- lots of jobs, shopping malls, restaurants, entertainment, ect.
CHOOSE DELAWARE!

Because
Winter Storm Slams Northeast (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/01/04/winter.storm/)

Delaware will lure twice as many Free Staters because it is warm.

Also, folks south of the Mason Dixon Line ain't gonna move to Yankee land.
Delaware is about as far north as they'd feel comfortable and welcome.
(unless they move to Wyoming ;D
Quote
Parts of the Northeast were buried in snow Saturday, but forecasters gave residents hope that the worst was over.
 The Hydrometeorological Prediction Center said a lingering band of snow across the northeastern United States would dissipate and leave only flurries by Sunday morning.
That was cold comfort, though, to people in Bridgewater, New York, who got 32 inches of snow, residents of Laurens, New York, who saw 27 inches of the white stuff and people in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts and several other states in the region who got more than a foot of snow.  
(http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WEATHER/01/04/winter.storm/story.albany.ny.jpg)

Walloped By Winter! (http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/9801/10/ice.storm/)
Quote
New Hampshire
January 10, 1998
50,000 still without power
"It's a white disaster zone" Emma Jerome finally took her family to a shelter late Friday, after spending hours trying to heat soup over candles. Her house was 42 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius).  "No water, no food, no heat, no toilet, and no coffee," she said.  About 50,000 residents in New Hampshire were still without power on Saturday; officials predicted most power will be restored by Monday.  New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen declared a limited state of emergency on Friday for three counties: Cheshire, Carroll and Coos. Parts of the state literally came to a halt. Officials on Friday limited travel in New London to emergency and repair crews.  A utility lineman in nearby Sunapee remained hospitalized on Saturday, a spokesman for New Hampshire Electric Cooperative said. Doctors fear he may be paralyzed.  Alan Noyes, a 39-year-old father of two, was removing a tree from power lines on Thursday when the tree snapped in half and pinned him to the ground. At least three other linemen have been injured while making repairs, officials said.  "It's a white disaster zone," said state Emergency Management director Bob Nelson on Friday. "I've never seen anything like it."
(http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/9801/10/ice.storm/tree.nh.jpg)

Compare to above to the worst the west may get.
People gripe about having to travel from Cheyenne to Fort Collins.
An eastern storm like the above can be far worse.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Stumpy on June 10, 2003, 02:00:25 pm
Also, folks south of the Mason Dixon Line ain't gonna move to Yankee land.
Delaware is about as far north as they'd feel comfortable and welcome.
(unless they move to Wyoming ;D

If NH is chosen, my family will move there from Alabama, a.k.a. “Heart of Dixie”.

I’ve been to NH many times. I always felt comfortable.
Title: By the numbers
Post by: benny on June 10, 2003, 02:16:22 pm
To clarify, I say by the raw numbers, WY is better.  After all, 20,000 would represent ~10% of the voting population, and NH does have a fair chunk of statists, albeit NH statists, which are a different breed (the boot on your neck should be the cheapest one available through competitive bidding).

The climate, acceptance to both the goals of the movement and the migration, put NH squarely in the lead.  Plus considering the current laws (e.g. taxes), we would have to do a great deal in other states just to reach where we would start in NH.  I would be significantly more free *today* by moving to NH.

I tend to agree with the NHLP when they assert that a strong job climate will be very, very important later on.  The 5,000 hardcore supporters (like me) will go anywhere, but once we have a single state we will have to entice people to go to that *one* state.  A strong job market, as well as the "type for all stripes" terrain, are key to drawing and keeping 15,000 so-so supporters.  

Hell, depending on how quickly we can get them, why stop there?  Let's go for 40,000.  Maybe the NHLP can take over the marketing when the FSP closes its doors.  They seem legitimately and rabidly interested in calling in the cavalry, and will almost certainly have more donations and members if NH is chosen.  We may have invented a whole new tool for 3rd parties.

benny
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: robmayn on June 10, 2003, 02:52:40 pm
-----------------------------
Constitutional Advantages
-----------------------------

Constitutions are far more difficult to change than statutes; thus, a constitution that limits the power of the legislature provides a more stable basis for both determining the state's liberty orientation and ensuring the ultimate success of the Free State Project.

New Hampshire offers MANY constitutional advantages


#7) New Hampshire's constitution is the ONLY constitution in the WORLD that protects its citizens right to revolution.

Art. 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, 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 doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

While I agree with your point on the importance of constitutions, I would like to point out that the Vermont Constitution includes a similar right.  


Article 7th. Government for the people; they may change it

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform or alter government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.

Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 10, 2003, 02:56:53 pm
First, I want to say that I am shocked at the quality of this work and how much effort was put into it.  This is the type of research the FSP really needs!

Two things:

Quote
#96) New Hampshire offers 17 accredited private senior colleges and universities to choose from. This is surpassed only by Maine.

17 in-state colleges and universities?  WOW!  Education, knowledge, imagination, and intelligence are a few of the main things that are unique to our political movement, and this is extremely important to the equation.

Quote
#74) New Hampshire is second only to ID for the number of new jobs forecast, 2000-2010.

This is also extremely significant.  Allow me to explain why.
If you show the actual data for each state, you will see that NH has over 100,000 new jobs projected for the next 10 years, while WY, for example, has only about 27,000 if I remember correctly.

This means that if the FSP chose WY, and if we do not immediately create jobs in the first ten years there, it would theoretically require up to TEN YEARS for us all to be able to move to WY if we took each available job in the state, every single year.

In other words, the entire planned 20,000-member FSP can move into NH about FIVE-TIMES FASTER than it can move into WY.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Karl on June 10, 2003, 03:06:56 pm
Because
Winter Storm Slams Northeast (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/01/04/winter.storm/)

Hank, did you somehow forget recent history?

Colorado, Wyoming get 7 feet of snow (http://cnn.weather.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=04%2F19%2F2003&urlID=5761268&fb=Y&partnerID=2005)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: robmayn on June 10, 2003, 03:07:15 pm
As I said before, my heart is with Vermont, but my head is with New Hampshire.  This well researched piece just solidified matters.  
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Hank on June 10, 2003, 03:44:11 pm
That was Denver that got the several feet. Your link also said
Quote
"In Wyoming, Cheyenne got more than 18 inches and Gillette got 13."
 INCHES!!!
Wyoming only got INCHES while Denver got plastered.

That was the "Worst blizzard in nearly 100 years". It'll be another hundred years before they get another like that. Most winter storms melt right off under the strong western high plains sun.

New England regularly gets winter storms which are horrendous: what with ice, freezing rain, sleet, slush, snow, and then flooding as a final insult.
And rain...........
You may as well live in Seattle.

http://www.unh.edu/news/Dec99/cd_19991222weather.html

Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Hank on June 10, 2003, 04:08:46 pm
No,
I do not think that beaches and jobs are as important as many here make them out to be. Freedom and chances for a FREE STATE are more important. That's why I keep pushing the best of the western states.

Those who like great beaches and weather can move to Delaware.

Those really serious about a FREE STATE will choose Wyoming or South Dakota.

Regarding water. You can have too much of such a good thing. In New Hampshire you can't get away from the humidity any time of the year.  But that is nothing compared to the people, millions of people.

You guys have to get involved in politics to keep the hoards at bay.
You guys have to work at getting a little bit more freedom.
We take it for granted out west.
If we worked at it a bit, with the help of even 10,000 porcupines, we'd be more free than New Hampshire can even dream about.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 10, 2003, 09:16:47 pm
Those who like great beaches and weather can move to Delaware.

Those really serious about a FREE STATE will choose Wyoming or South Dakota.

The majority of the report clearly illustrates all of the constitutional, political, and cultural reasons that New Hampshire is the best state for success of FSP. There are also extraordinarily strong economic and quality of living reasons tp choose New Hampshire. New Hampshire is the whole package, not bits and pieces like the other states.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 10, 2003, 10:13:40 pm
Quote
If we worked at it a bit, with the help of even 10,000 porcupines, we'd be more free than New Hampshire can even dream about.

From all of the evidence that has been presented here, I can easily argue that the people of WY are FAR less welcoming (per capita) than NH.

The greatest argument for WY is that it will be a smaller battle.  The greatest argument against WY is that the people of WY will be more likely to resist our agenda, as they are clearly more statist than the citizens of NH.

The greatest argument against NH is that it will be a larger battle.  The greatest argument for NH, however, is that the people of NH will be much less likely to resist our agenda, and far more likely to welcome it.

Quote
If libertarian, free market, high-tech Porcupines can't create 20,000 more jobs in ten years then your promise of the benefits of freedom is full of hot air OR you are not the activists you are touting yourselves as.  If you are, then you'll create 20,000 more jobs just by yourselves in five years.

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read on these forums.

Sure, there is clearly dirt, sunlight, and water in WY, so why shouldn't we be able to grow there?  Oh, I forgot, you need to plant something there first.  You need to be able to nurture the seed-stage businesses.

No jobs = no moving = no business.
No inside/outside investment = no business.
No high-tech industry = no business.
No private institutions of higher education = no business.
No "free trade zones" = no business.
No major cities nearby = no business.
An entire sparsely-populated region = no business.
No globalization = no business.

Reports like this prove my point:  Most high-tech seed-stage and early-stage startups will FAIL MISERABLY in Wyoming and will find MUCH greater success in New Hampshire.  Period.

And this is coming from the founder of a high-tech business.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Zxcv on June 11, 2003, 02:10:57 am
Wow, Michelle, I'm impressed. A lot of work went into this, obviously. Of course, I must take issue with some of it.   :)

#22 NH also offers some of the largest districts in the nation, or in our 10 states, anyway.

#24 is incorrect; Wyoming's state government is only 45% the size of New Hampshire's. If you mean "as a fraction of GSP" or "per capita", then you should say that, and then it would be correct.

#26 is somewhat amusing; NH may have the lowest percentage of NEA, but at the same time they have the highest number. And ID has the second highest. WY has the lowest number, and they aren't given the tools for influence NEA members in NH are.

#25 likewise, NH may have the lowest percentage, but it has the 3rd largest number of government employees. WY has the largest percentage but the 3rd lowest number.

#35 Hmmm, considering that the media are a bunch of lying bums, for the most part, and that most intelligent people consider them so, I don't know if it's such a bad thing for western states to be stigmatized in the media  ;)

#46-51 Didn't you leave out a couple of taxes that NH does have?  ;)

#54 Actually, according to my data, all our states but VT "let the rider decide", as long as he's 18 or older. NH has the small additional distinction of not putting an age limit on it.

#58 Isn't this the same as #24?

#60 "Almost passed" doesn't count. It is standard political practice for one house to pass a bill that the other house kills, thus molifying somewhat the citizens and giving them the impression they've actually accomplished something. Although I have to admit, what you currently have in the way of nullification already sounds pretty good. Do defense attorneys get whacked with "contempt of court" for mentioning it, I wonder?

#64 I believe AK has that distinction. Or, are you talking about combined federal, state and local taxes? You might be right on that...

#69 What's this microsoft listing? I'd like to see that if it is a new one, might add it to my big spreadsheet. You're right when you say of the SBSI index, "SD and WY also listed highly...", although you were being a bit coy.  ;) They actually rated higher than NH. Don't forget EFI, that had NH 4th among our 10 states, and EFNA that put it 3rd of the 10. If you weigh the 3 major indices we have equally, SD comes in first place, WY second, NH third (just a tad behind WY).

#72 I see your income rating, but what happened to the cost of living rating?   ;)

#83 Vermont I can see, but Maine? Good luck!  ::)

#85 Don't forget to add that NH has the highest average commute time of all 10 of our states.  :(

#87 "Smaller percentages of federally owned land mean greater control over the state's territory by citizens." Well... the land a given citizen controls is the land he owns (unless he's in a state with land use and zoning laws and property taxes - then he doesn't control it so much). Wyoming residents clearly control more land on average than NH residents. Oh, you're speaking collectively, now I get it.  ;)

#92 Morgan Quitno is a somewhat statist measure, I understand.

#100 What, no brown bear?   ;)

I have some more nits, but I won't belabor the point - more than I already have!   :D

Of course there is the old standard disclaimer for any list of "bests" - the inconvenient stuff gets left out. The spreadsheets at least allow you to look at the bad with the good. I'll send mine (now with 80 rows) to anyone who gives me a holler.

How about I give you one? NH has the highest percentage of signers of the Proclamation for the Separation of School & State among our 10 states (see www.sepschool.org).   :)  That's a row in my spreadsheet.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Zxcv on June 11, 2003, 02:47:04 am
Quote
Quote

#74) New Hampshire is second only to ID for the number of new jobs forecast, 2000-2010.
 

This is also extremely significant.  Allow me to explain why.
If you show the actual data for each state, you will see that NH has over 100,000 new jobs projected for the next 10 years, while WY, for example, has only about 27,000 if I remember correctly.

This means that if the FSP chose WY, and if we do not immediately create jobs in the first ten years there, it would theoretically require up to TEN YEARS for us all to be able to move to WY if we took each available job in the state, every single year.

In other words, the entire planned 20,000-member FSP can move into NH about FIVE-TIMES FASTER than it can move into WY.

No, you are way off base on these statements, Ruineur, for several reasons:

1) Wyoming's job projection finally came in, and it's now over 36k. Not in last place any more.   :)

2) Libertarians tend to be self-employed more than just about any other segment, so many of them will be hauling their jobs along with them, not consuming jobs from the above projected pool.

3) To reach the saturation in Wyoming equivalent to a full 20,000 in New Hampshire, we need only 7500 activists (and we can hit that number far easier than 20,000). So that is 7500 jobs max needed.

4) But some activists will be spouses, sons or daughters in single income households, so some of the jobs will support more than one activist.

5) Some people, libertarians particularly, just don't have much of a visible source of income.  ;)

6) A quarter of us, roughly are retirees. That's 5000 out of a 20,000 population, 2/3 of the way to the 7500 needed in WY to match 20,000 in NH.

7) Our movement will itself generate jobs; whenever you ship 10,000 or 20,000 people into a small state that certainly boosts the economy.

8 ) There is a huge job market just ourside the state, Ft. Collins, as a backup scenario for some activists.

9) Because WY is its own fallback state, activists can move with confidence the moment the vote is taken, giving them a 2 or 3 year lead on when the move to NH would be. We will be effective in WY much earlier than in NH or any other state.

When you add all these factors up, it appears we need, oh, say, minus 1000 jobs to support us.  ;) Actually it may be 2000, 3000, 4000, but at any rate hardly more than 10% of the job openings projected. Sorry, jobs are just not an issue - certainly not for people who really value freedom.

We will reach 7500 in Wyoming far more easily and quickly than we will reach 20,000 in New Hampshire. Are we more likely to reach 20,000 in Wyoming than in New Hampshire? No, I don't think so. But the rest of those activists, who can't go to or don't want Wyoming, can go to New Hampshire.   ;D
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 11, 2003, 03:09:26 am
The greatest argument for WY is that it will be a smaller battle.  The greatest argument against WY is that the people of WY will be more likely to resist our agenda, as they are clearly more statist than the citizens of NH.

Wyoming would definitely be a smaller battle, but I don't know where you get the idea that the people of Wyoming would resist our agenda.  Every indicator I've seen points to the opposite.  I'd remind you that the WYLP is a major party there, and that the voting records of Wyoming's congressional delegation (House and Senate) have been rated as "libertarian".  That's hardly a result of hostility toward libertarian ideas.  

Take a look at the "Thoughts from Wyoming Newspapers, big and small" thread sometime.  I've yet to read anything like the volume of consistent, broad, liberty-friendly thought in any state papers as I have in the Wyoming papers.  
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Stumpy on June 11, 2003, 07:14:23 am
Each state ought to have a similar biased list of 101 best reasons.

As someone who hasn’t made up his mind how to vote, I would be interested in seeing this.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 11, 2003, 09:46:46 am
Wow, Michelle, I'm impressed. A lot of work went into this, obviously.

Thank you. Much work did go into this.

Quote
#22 NH also offers some of the largest districts in the nation, or in our 10 states, anyway.

That is right, we have some multi-seat districts. I stated that in the report. But, New Hampshire has a clear plan that has been proven successful in recent history, to win even in these multi-seat districts. It is called FUSION. Something that is BANNED in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, Alaska, and Maine. And, of course, the plan for the small districts - the ones that are the smallest in the NATION - is obvious.

So New Hampshire has a plan for winning seats in the state house. What is Wyoming's plan? Montana's plan? Since fusion is banned in these states and the districts are much, much larger than NH's smaller districts, I'm really curious.

Do any other states have an FSP member who is ALREADY a member of the legislature? New Hampshire does. If FSP comes to NH we already have a head start with a member in the state house. And, we are forging ahead to get even more FSP members elected as I type this. Has the WY LP shown this foresight and enthusiasm? How about the MT LP? Considering that the WY LP has only 1 elected Libertarian and MT LP has 0 as compared to LPNH's 28, I would say no.

Quote
#24 is incorrect; Wyoming's state government is only 45% the size of New Hampshire's. If you mean "as a fraction of GSP" or "per capita", then you should say that, and then it would be correct.

You are right. Thanks for catching that; I'll make sure to add it to any future edits. Of course, the key phrases are "as a percentage of" and "per capita" - because that is what is important. It is what indicates the commitment of the state's citizens to keeping government small and is a darn good indicator of the support FSP will have in the state.

Quote
#26 is somewhat amusing; NH may have the lowest percentage of NEA, but at the same time they have the highest number. And ID has the second highest. WY has the lowest number, and they aren't given the tools for influence NEA members in NH are.

#25 likewise, NH may have the lowest percentage, but it has the 3rd largest number of government employees. WY has the largest percentage but the 3rd lowest number.

See my comments above. Again, "as a percentage of" and "per capita" are the key phrases. New Hampshire has an unmatched history of keeping government small, efficient, and inexpensive. The size of its government "as a percentage of" and "per capita" make this point quite well. It is my researched opinion that FSP will find a much higher PERCENTAGE OF friends in NH than they will ever find in the other states.

Quote
#35 Hmmm, considering that the media are a bunch of lying bums, for the most part, and that most intelligent people consider them so, I don't know if it's such a bad thing for western states to be stigmatized in the media  ;)

Are you saying that you don't think public opinion will have anything to do with the FSP's success? That the media doesn't have the power to swing public opinion? And that having media balance out in our favor won't be beneficial? I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you.

Quote
#46-51 Didn't you leave out a couple of taxes that NH does have?  ;)

Irrelevant when you remember that NH has the lowest taxes as a percentage of gross income nationwide. These figures take all taxes into account.

#1 NH    4.54%    1st in nation
#2 SD    5.05%    2nd in nation
#3 MT    7.26%    28th in nation
#4 WY    7.61%    31st in nation
#5 ND    7.94%    34th in nation
#6 AK    8.04%    36th in nation
#7 ID    8.32%    39th in nation
#8 ME    8.63%    43rd in nation
#9 DE    9.19%    47th in nation
#10 VT    9.57%    48th in nation


Quote
#54 Actually, according to my data, all our states but VT "let the rider decide", as long as he's 18 or older. NH has the small additional distinction of not putting an age limit on it.

There are 300,000 - 400,000 bikers in New Hampshire right now. If you don't think New Hampshire's lack of helmet laws -  in comparison to all the restrictions all but three other states in the nation place on them - are important, perhaps you could ask them? BTW, the outreach LPNH is doing there this week is very clearly proving that an overwhelming percentage of these bikers are libertarians and very likely to be supportive of the FSP.

Quote
#60 "Almost passed" doesn't count. It is standard political practice for one house to pass a bill that the other house kills, thus molifying somewhat the citizens and giving them the impression they've actually accomplished something.

This was so close we could taste it. Relatively few truly politically active Libertarians and libertarians are accomplishing so much in NH. How many more activists would it have taken to get this passed? My educated guess is only a few handfuls. So close! How much more could we accomplish with 100 more activists, 1000, 5000?! With the present makeup of the legislatures, could you even get this bill passed in the House in MT or WY? That is my point.

Quote
Do defense attorneys get whacked with "contempt of court" for mentioning it, I wonder?

Not that I am aware of. Ask James Maynard for more info about this - I'm pretty sure he has a friend who is a practicing defense attorney in NH who told him that there are no restrictions placed on them in this regard.

Quote
#64 I believe AK has that distinction.

Not in any ranking I've seen anywhere.

Quote
#69 What's this microsoft listing? I'd like to see that if it is a new one, might add it to my big spreadsheet.


The URL is listed in the sources section of the PDF.

Quote
#72 I see your income rating, but what happened to the cost of living rating?   ;)

Negated by this:

New Hampshire is second only to Alaska for offering the lowest poverty rates. Besides the obvious economic advantage of this measure, it also indicates a lower percentage of possible opponents based on reliance on public assistance.

#1 Alaska - 7th in nation
#2 New Hampshire - 10th in nation
#3 Vermont - 13th in nation
#4 Delaware - 15th in nation
#5 Maine - 17th in nation
#6 South Dakota - 27th in nation
#7 Wyoming - 29th in nation
#8 North Dakota - 38th in nation
#9 Idaho - 39th in nation
#10 Montana - 45th in nation

Quote
#83 Vermont I can see, but Maine? Good luck!  ::)

I grew up in Southern Maine and agree with you that it is one of the states where we would be least likely to have success initially. But remember, Maine is one of our candidate states. That alone means that we have greater odds of achieving our goals there than in 40 other states. And, I sincerely hope that our first free state will be a model of liberty that no other state will be able to ignore, Maine included.

Quote
#85 Don't forget to add that NH has the highest average commute time of all 10 of our states.  :(

I would suggest you check out all the community profiles that I painstakingly categorized on the LPNH site. Rather than statewide averages they give community averages. I haven't spent the time to analyze it, but I think that you will find that the averages on a municipality-by-municipality basis are much more accurate. I'm guessing that there are some outliers are probably skewing the statewide average.

Quote
#87 "Smaller percentages of federally owned land mean greater control over the state's territory by citizens." Well... the land a given citizen controls is the land he owns (unless he's in a state with land use and zoning laws and property taxes - then he doesn't control it so much). Wyoming residents clearly control more land on average than NH residents. Oh, you're speaking collectively, now I get it.  ;)

That was sort of nasty of you. You just totally and intentionally twisted the point. None of this has anything to do with the possible leverage the federal government could claim in the states with high percentages of federally owned land.

Quote
#92 Morgan Quitno is a somewhat statist measure, I understand.

Actually, I think you'll find the quality of living criteria are criteria that we would almost completely agree with.

Quote
#100 What, no brown bear?   ;)

As someone who frequently dry camps out in the middle of nowhere, I'd have to say I would consider this an advantage.

Quote
Of course there is the old standard disclaimer for any list of "bests" - the inconvenient stuff gets left out.


Sure, there are things that need to be worked on in NH. But LPNH is actively working to remedy these things and developing strategic and tactical plans to really attack the more challenging things once we have the help of more activists. We are working hard to establish the framework for success and to give FSP a running start. Are the supporters of other states doing the same? If they are, I certainly haven't seen evidence of it.

Each section of my report would stand on its own, but combined - the historical precedent, political advantages, constitutional advantages, cultural advantages, economic advantages, geographic advantages, and quality of living advantages - I've seen nothing that has convinced me that any state offers FSP the same chances at true success.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 11, 2003, 10:09:28 am
Quote
Again,
The above quotes are what we would expect from lying or bragging politicians or used car salesmen. The use of such arguments must assume that Free Staters and readers of this forum have no more intelligence or knowledge or research ability than the average sheep who depends on National Enquirer for their news.

As I said before, I believe you should not attack the person speaking simply because you cannot refute their argument or you do not like the fact that you may be losing the argument.  Whether you want to do that or not, that's up to you, but I look down upon such a highly-immature form of debate.

I will not say this to you again.  The next time you blatantly insult me, you're ignored, and I will no longer read nor respond to any of your posts, no matter what they may contain.  Please, Joe, we are on the same team here.  Debate, not insults.  I am sorry if I have insulted you in the past in any way.  I forgive you for every insulting thing you've said to me or about me, but please stop.

Quote
There is a huge job market just ourside the state, Ft. Collins, as a backup scenario for some activists.

Let's commute from Cheyenne, WY to Denver, CO every day.  According to MapQuest, that's:
-Total Distance: 100.89 miles
-Total Estimated Time: 1 hour, 44 minutes

I've driven that long to get to work before and I will never do that again.  Not going to happen.  And I strongly recommend against it.

Now let's commute from Cheyenne, WY to Fort Collins, CO every day.  According to MapQuest, that's:
Total Distance: 46.20 miles
Total Estimated Time: 50 minutes

I could perhaps see myself doing that, but only for a few months.  I've been in the situation where I had to drive that long to get to work every day and it's possible, but a big waste of time and money.

I've learned my lesson.  I cannot sum up my knowledge quickly without quoting the data behind each individual argument or else people will attack its credibility, so that's what I'll do:

No jobs = no moving = no business.
-NH has 3 TIMES MORE available jobs than WY over the next 10 years, even if WY's new number is 36k.  Also, read below for more on this and my argument that WY's projected jobs are not even the types of jobs most of us will be able to do (although I guess we could try...?).

No inside/outside investment = no business.
-NH Venture Capital investments are far greater in size and number than WY investments.  It would be interesting to see how much non-Venture-Capital high-tech investment occurs in WY, if any.

No high-tech industry = no business.
-Read below.  Jobs come first, businesses come second.

No private institutions of higher education = no business.
-Granted, WY has one (three???), but NH has 17 if I remember correctly.

No "free trade zones" = no business.
-NH has free trade zones which spur business growth and globalization.  Does WY have these?  If so, why can't I find any information about them?

No major cities nearby = no business.
-NH has far more major cities within 200 miles than WY.  These are HUGE markets to which I can market my high-tech products and services.

An entire sparsely-populated region = no business.
-See above.

No globalization = no business.
-NH (17) is much higher than WY (46) on the globalization scale.

Quote
If libertarian, free market, high-tech Porcupines can't create 20,000 more jobs in ten years then your promise of the benefits of freedom is full of hot air OR you are not the activists you are touting yourselves as.  If you are, then you'll create 20,000 more jobs just by yourselves in five years.

Quote
Sorry, jobs are just not an issue - certainly not for people who really value freedom.

This makes no sense.  None.  There is simply NO correlation between activism and entrepreneurial ability.  The two are not in any way related.  These statements have no validity whatsoever.

Why are so many people saying that "if you can't create jobs, you're not a good activist"?  How does that make any sense?

One last point for NH:

Do you have ANY idea how difficult it is to start a business and how important the economic advantages of NH will be to the many FSP high-tech workers and entrepreneurs?

http://www.sba.gov/starting_business/startup/areyouready.html

Starting a small business is always risky, and the chance of success is slim. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, over 50% of small businesses fail in the first year and 95% fail within the first five years.

In his book Small Business Management, Michael Ames gives the following reasons for small business failure:

1:Lack of experience
2:Insufficient capital (money)
3:Poor location
4:Poor inventory management
5:Over-investment in fixed assets
6:Poor credit arrangements
7:Personal use of business funds
8:Unexpected growth
Gustav Berle adds two more reasons in The Do It Yourself Business Book:
9:Competition
10:Low sales


NH is a far, far better choice for creating jobs than WY, especially because of:

#1 (many more private universities and a greater existing small business environment means more available education and experience)

#2 (NH has far more VC investment than WY)

#3 (NH is far more highly-rated than WY on every single economic scale except for "friendliness" to businesses)

#4 and #5 (no inventory tax in NH)

#10 (NH has a far greater demand for high-tech products and services than WY because of its existing businesses.  In WY, you could only hope to sell to businesses in CO.)

Most ventures fail.  Even those that do not fail often do not hire any employees and only employ the founder.  Even those that employ only the founder often depend on the founder's second job to fund and startup the business venture.  This is why JOBS come first and BUSINESSES come second.  That is, unless we can all somehow save up ridiculous amounts of money to live on while we try (and most often fail, according to the experts) to start our businesses in WY.

In addition, the WY job numbers you're referring to are mostly not high-tech related in any way, as that is not WY's core (or secondary) job market, but you're still depending on us taking almost EVERY SINGLE AVAILABLE JOB in WY in order to succeed while most of us are high-tech workers who won't find any high-tech jobs in WY, and could only hope to commute to CO, if possible.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Hank on June 11, 2003, 10:36:22 am
Quote
Look how few FSP members Wyoming has in the state vs. the number in New Hampshire. And the few that are there have not made an effort to roll out the red carpet for the rest of the porcupines the way those in New Hampshire have. ;)
It is good you put the smiley after your statement.

I was getting the impression you NH boosters were trying to get the FSP to choose a place where we are outnumbered sixty to one and thus purposely trying to lead us to failure.

OTOH
Wyoming has less than half the people of New Hampshire and they don't have to work as hard for Freedom. Their Republicans are doing okay and even their Democrats are not too bad. So why do they need Libertarians?
Oops, thread drift alert.
Time to move to Wyoming (threads) ;)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: BobW on June 11, 2003, 10:45:21 am
Hi LeRuineur6

Ref:  Reply # 35

        (near end of post)

Re:  "No globalization = no business"
       "NH (17) is much higher than WY (46) on the    
globalization scale"

I'm not sure if that scale is an FSP matrix created scale or something from industry being relied on.  

Regardless;

A major industry of Wyoming is mining. Wyoming's extractive ore industry - and the surrounding states - have relocated offshore.  Thus, the scale used, although I'm sure accurate, only presents the current situation.

Senator Allen of Virginia and Senator Enzi of Wyoming are pushing legislation that might change the mining industry and thus  that globalization scale.
The legislation is to get the money, and later the businesses, back to stateside.

Now, I'm not getting into the arguments about state selection.  I am not a declared FSPer porcupine.  I just want to address that a lot of this stuff is in the hopper and all kinds of things are on the horizon.  Wish we lived in interesting times.
 

BobW
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Karl on June 11, 2003, 11:07:12 am
Wyoming has less than half the people of New Hampshire and they don't have to work as hard for Freedom. Their Republicans are doing okay and even their Democrats are not too bad. So why do they need Libertarians?

That sums of one of Wyoming's biggest problems vs. New Hampshire.  They already think they're free!
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Kelton Baker on June 11, 2003, 12:40:07 pm

#34) Almost across the board, New Hampshire-region newspapers and television stations have been receptive of and fair to the Free State Project - in front-page feature articles, special television news segments, event coverage, radio interviews, editorials, and letters to the editor. Many thousands of New Hampshire citizens and the citizens of neighboring states have learned about the Free State Project in a positive way thanks to reporters from the Union Leader, Channel 9, WBZ-TV, Tiger Radio, Boston Globe, and other media outlets.

I've seen media coverage go both ways most everywhere, in fact there is no great shortage of statist media coming out of New Hampshire either.  Please consider this statement from Ben Irvin:

"I just watched KPVI Channel 6 (Pocatello, ID) coverage ofthe GWC in Missoula.  The reporter, Doug Anderson, went out of the norm to make the FSP and the GWC look fantastic.
He had close up interviews with Jason, the Stan Smith (north IDLP
Chair), and MT state representative Joe Balyeat.  The report made
the event look like a great thing...a proposition that should be of
interest to Idahoans. I don't believe that I have ever seen a TV
piece that was as biased (in our favor) as this.  After the section
was shown, the weatherman indicated that with all the great
weather southeast Idaho has been having the FSP would surely
pick Idaho.  The piece captured every word Jason said.  They
noted that Joe was a libertarian Republican."


346
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 11, 2003, 02:46:14 pm
Quote
At least some researchers have gone to great lengths to do research, compare numbers, and even change their minds as facts may indicate.

I was member number 2500 or so I believe.  I arrived later in the game and quite a bit of work and research was already done.  You can call me biased, but it has been impossible for all of the research I've been reading to change my mind primarily because I run a high-tech business and I've read that most FSP members are "computer geeks and high-tech workers".

Therefore, I will always choose the best place for a high-tech business to startup and grow because I believe the success of the FSP depends on our members finding employment and starting, growing, or moving their businesses in our target state.  Since NH is so strong in this way, I have begun to lean strongly toward NH and, as of yet, have not found a reason to do otherwise through all of the research I've seen.

Speaking of research, here are my last 4 hours of research into the banking institution ratings of NH and WY.  The reason I did this research is because I was talking about the small business investment atmosphere in NH versus WY and realized I had not yet seen any ratings for lending institutions in each state.  So here you go:



This research post was deleted for the time being.  There was a statistical problem in the calculation of the records due to multiple reporting entries for unique institutions over a 12-year time frame.  I will repost the research when it is corrected.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 11, 2003, 03:39:29 pm
On the subject of original research, why hasn't anyone ever calculated the rankings of projected job growth per capita?

I just took the liberty of doing so:

Job Growth Rates

WY = 36,300 projected new jobs over ten years.
AK = 47,800
ND = 34,300 (1998-2008)
VT = 34,400
SD = 61,600
DE = 61,600
MT = 92,500
ID = 158,700
NH = 109,400
ME = 56,400

Projected Job Growth Rates Per Capita:

WY = 36,300 / 499,000 = 0.073 per capita
AK = 47,800 / 644,000 = 0.074
ND = 34,300 / 634,000 = 0.054
VT = 34,400 / 617,000 = 0.056
SD = 61,600 / 761,000 = 0.081
DE = 61,600 / 807,000 = 0.076
MT = 92,500 / 909,000 = 0.102
ID = 158,700 / 1,341,000 = 0.118
NH = 109,400 / 1,275,000 = 0.086
ME = 56,400 / 1,294,000 = 0.044

Rankings in Projected Job Growth Per Capita:

#1 ID = 0.118
#2 MT = 0.102
#3 NH = 0.086
#4 SD = 0.081
#5 DE = 0.076
#6 AK = 0.074
#7 WY = 0.073
#8 VT = 0.056
#9 ND = 0.054
#10 ME = 0.044

MT and ID even better growth rates than NH, but NH's projected job growth (per capita) is 18% higher than WY's.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: BobW on June 11, 2003, 03:57:58 pm
Hi LeRuineur6,

I don't think you can establish a corrolation between banking institution ratings and CRA ratings.

The Community Reinvestment Act channels funds the market refuses to address.  However, it is a law requiring compliance.

The 6% substantial noncompliance of WY institutions compared to the 0% of the NH institutions can indicate the federal examiners are sharp or that the federal examiners are not sharp.  

It is an unknown re how much of assets are controlled.  If money is needed for something yielding a return, the money will show up.  

Thus I will argue that WY has available as much money as needed.  NH operates the same way under the same principle.

BobW
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on June 11, 2003, 04:06:23 pm
Quote
Do defense attorneys get whacked with "contempt of court" for mentioning it, I wonder?

Not that I am aware of. Ask James Maynard for more info about this - I'm pretty sure he has a friend who is a practicing defense attorney in NH who told him that there are no restrictions placed on them in this regard.

He's told me that in any jury trial, jury nullification CAN be mentioned, without restriction, during the closing argument. Because the lawyer is explaining court rules to the jury, it has to be followed by "If I am instructing you incorrectly, the court will correct me". But a) They are never corrected, as long as they are not TOO far off base with their instruction, and b) it increases the strength of the instruction. :)

Speaking of which, someone on a forum asked me about self-defense laws in NH.... I asked him about that last night... He told me that if, in NH, someone breaks into your house, they are essentially dogmeat. He said he has NEVER heard of a person in NH being tried for ANYTHING for defending their home.
But if you are outside your house, you are supposed to only respond with the same amount of force that you could expect to be attacked with; if an old lady is hitting you on the shin with her umbrella, you can't pull out an uzi and blow her away, and call it self-defense! ;) But if you are being attacked by a goon on the street, and you pull out a gun, and he charges out you anyway, then gee, he's probably hyped up on PCP, and you are in danger for your life... And so is he ;)

JM
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: HOG RIDER on June 11, 2003, 09:35:42 pm
Michelle, You sure know how to stir things up! :)

Wyo. is at the top of my list, but you just gave me alot more reasons to consider N.H.  

Good thing the vote is a few months away. I'm going to need the time to figure this out. ???

One thing I remember about N.H. was how friendly people where there. In one example from traveling through N.H., some friends and I were on our motorcycles when we stopped at a food store to buy groceries to take back to the campground. A middle aged lady came up and started talking to me by saying "Welcome to N.H." I was a little shocked, because at the time I must have looked like Grizzly Adams, and riding a Harley at that! As I thought about it, that was the only state in my travels across the U.S. by motorcycle where that has ever happened to me. As we rode through the state, I remember people being more friendly to us than anywhere else.

Anyway...thanks for your report. I plan on reading it over many more times before I vote!

HOG RIDER 8)












 
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: robmayn on June 11, 2003, 09:40:31 pm
-----------------------------
Constitutional Advantages
-----------------------------

Constitutions are far more difficult to change than statutes; thus, a constitution that limits the power of the legislature provides a more stable basis for both determining the state's liberty orientation and ensuring the ultimate success of the Free State Project.  ....


#11) New Hampshire's constitution is one of only two constitutions among the ten states that does not mandate the provision of a public school system.
To abolish government-controlled schools in any other state would require a constitutional amendment.

#12) Some state constitutions, other than New Hampshire's specifically prohibit secession. While this is not a goal of the Free State Project, it could be a critical bargaining chip during negotiations with the federal government.

This leaves only six states that can reasonably be considered if we are to take the goals of ending federal mandates seriously: Alaska, Delaware, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, and Vermont.


I strongly believe that this should be repeated, as constitutional factors are far more important than a number of factors in the spreadsheet.  (At least in my opinion)

On constitutional grounds, I see Vermont and New Hampshire as a tossup.  On the grounds of historical heritage, I give the edge to Vermont.  (Vermont is one of three states that started out as an independent republic before joining the union, the other two being California and Texas)  In terms of which way current politics are trending, I give the edge to New Hampshire.  

In addition to mandating state funding of education and subservience to the federal government, the Wyoming constitution mandates state control of resources like water because it was considered "essential to INDUSTRIAL prosperity".  

Then you have the article on labor protection:
"The rights of labor shall have just protection through laws calculated to secure to the laborer proper rewards for his service and to promote the INDUSTRIAL welfare of the state."

I could go on, as there are many more such examples.  The Wyoming Constitution is a product of the industrial age, where political thinkers were enamored with centralized control.  The constitutions of states like New Hampshire and Vermont reflect the timeless "Natural Law" philosophy of the founding generation.  

The folks of Wyoming may have as strong, or stronger, spirit
of liberty as those of any other state, but face a steep uphill
climb to truly become a free state.  I just do not see them making the necessary constitutional changes.  For that matter, I do not see any of the other states doing that either.  That is why the FSP would be wise to choose a state which would not require major, if any, constitutional changes.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 11, 2003, 09:56:16 pm
Michelle, You sure know how to stir things up! :)

Wyo. is at the top of my list, but you just gave me alot more reasons to consider N.H.  

Good thing the vote is a few months away. I'm going to need the time to figure this out. ???

One thing I remember about N.H. was how friendly people where there. In one example from traveling through N.H., some friends and I were on our motorcycles when we stopped at a food store to buy groceries to take back to the campground. A middle aged lady came up and started talking to me by saying "Welcome to N.H." I was a little shocked, because at the time I must have looked like Grizzly Adams, and riding a Harley at that! As I thought about it, that was the only state in my travels across the U.S. by motorcycle where that has ever happened to me. As we rode through the state, I remember people being more friendly to us than anywhere else.

Anyway...thanks for your report. I plan on reading it over many more times before I vote!

HOG RIDER 8)


LOL. That definitely sounds like NH and the people I know here.  :D My husband is a "HOG RIDER" too.  Have you ever come here for Bike Week in Laconia? It is going on this week. The state is packed with Harleys at the moment. They estimate that 300,000-400,000 bikers come to NH for bike week every year.

I'm glad I gave you something to think about. That was the plan  ;)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LisaLew on June 11, 2003, 11:33:45 pm
Michelle-- thanks for posting this report.  I really appreciate this analysis for NH, espciallythe important state constitution considerations.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Zxcv on June 12, 2003, 02:32:36 am
Responding to Michelle:
Quote
Quote

#35 Hmmm, considering that the media are a bunch of lying bums, for the most part, and that most intelligent people consider them so, I don't know if it's such a bad thing for western states to be stigmatized in the media  
 

Are you saying that you don't think public opinion will have anything to do with the FSP's success? That the media doesn't have the power to swing public opinion? And that having media balance out in our favor won't be beneficial? I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you.
No, I agree public opinion is important. But westerners are more likely to agree with western media (which will not bash western states, obviously) and ignore, for example, Washington Post blather. I think we should ignore it too. It won't affect what happens in our state.

I also mean that we should be picking a state where the people are a little less trustful of propaganda rags, a little more able to read between the lines of stories, maybe even a state whose people do not tolerate really bad press. The Casper paper seems way better than the one I am really familiar with, the Oregonian. There may be others in our 10 states, that are pretty decent.

Quote
Quote

#54 Actually, according to my data, all our states but VT "let the rider decide", as long as he's 18 or older. NH has the small additional distinction of not putting an age limit on it.
 

There are 300,000 - 400,000 bikers in New Hampshire right now. If you don't think New Hampshire's lack of helmet laws -  in comparison to all the restrictions all but three other states in the nation place on them - are important, perhaps you could ask them?

Whoa, slow down there, Nellie!   :)  I'm not saying lack of helmet laws are not a good thing, I'm saying NH is hardly unique in this, that 8 other of our states are in the same situation (except for the 17 and 18 yr olds). If we have conflicting information on this, let's clear it up. What is your source? Mine is http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html

And to be honest, I don't think requiring 17 and 18 yr olds to wear helmets is such a bad thing; maybe they will even survive to be 19 and then can dump the helmet. You may now blast away for my violation of libertarian dogma...

On #64, please clarify what taxes you are talking about. State and local? All taxes? That is what I was looking for.

On #72, OK I'll buy the lesser number of rent-seekers, but I was just noting that presenting income without mentioning cost of living is really half the picture. But of course, the whole point of these "lists of bests" things is to put your best foot forward and ignore the inconvenient items...   ::)

On #83, Maine is in our list based on one criterion, population. We threw out RI and Hawaii, and if we had known more about Maine at that point it might have been tossed too. But this really is a nit...

Quote
Quote

#85 Don't forget to add that NH has the highest average commute time of all 10 of our states.  
 

I would suggest you check out all the community profiles that I painstakingly categorized on the LPNH site. Rather than statewide averages they give community averages. I haven't spent the time to analyze it, but I think that you will find that the averages on a municipality-by-municipality basis are much more accurate. I'm guessing that there are some outliers are probably skewing the statewide average
Well, I have no idea how to get a single number from processing little bits of information from your site, and I'd have to do the same thing for equivalently-compiled data for every other state to form a comparison - data which of course does not exist. Maybe it makes more sense for you to go here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=918;start=15) and try to see why NH ended up last in a measure applied consistently from state to state.

On #87, come on, Michelle, I put a smiley there. Have a sense of humor. Besides, are the feds interfering outside of "their" land? Hell, the feds interfere whenever they want. They don't need the excuse of land to do it. I don't know, this just looks like speculation to me. You could be right. But that dark cloud has a silver lining, because it sure gets westerners riled at the feds, which I think is not a bad thing. It's an exercise for the reader to decide on balance if the whole fed lands thing is a positive or negative...

To Joe, come on, guy, you can't blame people for "putting their best foot forward". It's not like everyone is not doing it. I think it's sufficient to point out that these "lists of bests" are nice, but hardly the kind of thing you'd want to hang your hat on, let alone as the sole basis for picking up and moving across the country. We need to hear the bad with the good, for all the states.

Ruineur, I noticed you responded to only two of my substantive points, agreeing with one and spending a lot of verbiage on what I explicitly stated was merely a backup scenario, a short-term thing. So what do you think of the rest of it?

As to your comment:
Quote
Quote
Sorry, jobs are just not an issue - certainly not for people who really value freedom.
 

This makes no sense.  None.  There is simply NO correlation between activism and entrepreneurial ability.  The two are not in any way related.  These statements have no validity whatsoever.
Well, the point I was trying to make is this: Wyoming has jobs, maybe 5 or even 10 times as many as we need. It may not have the mix of jobs that many FSPers prefer. But if a person wants freedom, he does not squawk too much at something as relatively minor as a career change, or a cut in pay. Hell, I've made career changes just for fun, and taken a cut in pay just to get into a startup company I wanted to. These are motivations far more trivial than wanting to be free. I understand some people find the prospect of a new job or a new career or a move to another state terrifying. Such people are probably not good liberty advocates.

Of course, if Charles Curley were here, he'd tell you he took a cut in pay to get to Wyoming, but the cost of living was so much cheaper there it essentially cancelled out, and his quality of life is much better there. I'd expect this to be a common occurrence.

Yes, I know about starting a business. I had a computer hardware consulting company (not PC's but scientific computers) for a few years, my wife's had parts of 3 different restaurants that I've helped in, and she has a very successful database consulting firm currently that I also did some work for. For the most part our problem has been finding competent people with a decent work ethic, and too much time wasted dealing with bureaucracy. Oh, and high taxes.  >:(

Quote
NH is far more highly-rated than WY on every single economic scale except for "friendliness" to businesses
Gee, that's a pretty important one.  ;)  What others are there? WY outshines NH on 2 of our 3 broad-based economic indices, has better Congressional representation for business subjects, and has no business taxes unlike NH. What do you mean by "every single economic scale"?   :D

Quote
but you're still depending on us taking almost EVERY SINGLE AVAILABLE JOB in WY in order to succeed
Well, I explicitly noted why this is not true, but apparently you missed that or choose to ignore it. Go back and look at that post and try to shoot holes through my arguments.

Oh, one other thing on this warm (NH or ID) economy vs quiet (WY) economy. What if FSP went to Wyoming, and the added freedom did what it always does - caused the economy to warm up and diversify? That would be something to be proud of, right? Something to show to neighboring states (esp. Montana which needs a government housecleaning). One of the best ways to sell freedom is a nice healthy economy. That opportunity would be largely lost in states already there like NH and ID.

Ruineur, let me send you my big spreadsheet and you can take a look at it. You might be surprised.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Karl on June 12, 2003, 09:12:25 am
Well, the point I was trying to make is this: Wyoming has jobs, maybe 5 or even 10 times as many as we need. It may not have the mix of jobs that many FSPers prefer. But if a person wants freedom, he does not squawk too much at something as relatively minor as a career change, or a cut in pay. Hell, I've made career changes just for fun, and taken a cut in pay just to get into a startup company I wanted to. These are motivations far more trivial than wanting to be free. I understand some people find the prospect of a new job or a new career or a move to another state terrifying. Such people are probably not good liberty advocates.

The 36,000 jobs created in the next 10 years are not reserved for free staters, and most of those are low-paid service jobs, as would most of the jobs created by those moving.  Switching careers to a retail clerk making $20,000 won't cut it, wouldn't be fun, and wouldn't be trivial.

Quote
Of course, if Charles Curley were here, he'd tell you he took a cut in pay to get to Wyoming, but the cost of living was so much cheaper there it essentially cancelled out, and his quality of life is much better there. I'd expect this to be a common occurrence.

Now, imagine 5,000 Charles Curleys competing for those handful of college teaching slots.  And I have no doubt that the cost of living and quality of life in most parts of Wyoming are better than in LA and San Fransisco, where Charles apparently moved from.

Quote
Quote
NH is far more highly-rated than WY on every single economic scale except for "friendliness" to businesses
Gee, that's a pretty important one.    What others are there? WY outshines NH on 2 of our 3 broad-based economic indices, has better Congressional representation for business subjects, and has no business taxes unlike NH. What do you mean by "every single economic scale"?

The business "friendliness" index is baloney.  By that measure, Antarctica would one of the most "business friendly" places on the earth.

Quote
Oh, one other thing on this warm (NH or ID) economy vs quiet (WY) economy. What if FSP went to Wyoming, and the added freedom did what it always does - caused the economy to warm up and diversify? That would be something to be proud of, right? Something to show to neighboring states (esp. Montana which needs a government housecleaning). One of the best ways to sell freedom is a nice healthy economy. That opportunity would be largely lost in states already there like NH and ID.

Our goal is to free the state, not to "warm" its economy -- taking on additional challenges is to our detriment, not our advantage.  In any case, how long will it take for our reforms to take hold in order begin positively and meaningfully affecting the economy, best case?  10 years?  20 years?  30?
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 12, 2003, 10:26:08 am
Hello FSP Members!  Welcome to Wyoming!!!   :D

You first duty in Wyoming is activism!  Oh wait, you need a job in order to move there in the first place.  ;) So as most of us FSP-ers are computer geeks and high-tech workers, your first duty in Wyoming is to find a job, for which you are qualified, that will most likely not exist here!

Here in Wyoming, this is possible in any number of ways!  You can:

LOL!!!

Sorry about that, but I had to.  I think this whole NH/WY battle is getting out of hand among certain people.  We need a little more humor to get back to reality sometimes!  We all need to grow up and work together for the greater good.

If that means Wyoming, so be it.  But I'm personally vouching for New Hampshire.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Hank on June 12, 2003, 11:45:03 am
To New Hampshire Libertarians,

It is obvious from your many posts over many months that some of you hate the West.  You continue to attack us with innuendo, insults, and digging remarks.  Okay, two can play that game.

The best thing that could happen to New Hampshire Freedom Fighters is to have Wyoming win the FSP vote.

It would keep a burr under your saddle to keep from being shown up.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LisaLew on June 12, 2003, 12:05:01 pm
Libertarian-- I am not convinced that it will be so easy to tackle the government schools in NH.  I am definitely piqued by the state constitution and its reference to education in the state, but after some preliminary research on NH's state education, their system is well-entrenched and far along on the federal reform path.  In another post I go into this (education in each state), and ask for some NH help is understanding the court cases that lost in regards to mandatory state assessment participation.  The courts site the state constitution as the reason to why the state is bound to have mandatory assessment.  Any NH folks-- can you help shed some light on this area?
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Karl on June 12, 2003, 12:16:12 pm
It is obvious from your many posts over many months that some of you hate the West.  You continue to attack us with innuendo, insults, and digging remarks.  Okay, two can play that game.

Hank, certainly we're all guilty of a little hyperbole now and then, but none of the recent posts seemed to me to suggest that  NH advocates "hated" the West or competition with it.  On the contrary, the NH advocates, particularly those of the LPNH, have demonstrated what can only be described as zeal for the competition, an attitude that is likely to serve us well in the free state.  Now here you are posting something that can best be sumarized as "I hate the competition with NH, because they are too good at it."  I find this very hypocritical, especially coming from one of the most prolific posters of hyperbole and exageration on this forum.

Where is Wyoming's "101 Reasons to Vote for Wyoming"?  If you can't take this little bit of politics, how can you take the politics of the free state?  Instead, I see you doing nothing but complain about how your opponents are winning and how unfair it is.  A very UN-libertarian attitude!
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Rearden on June 12, 2003, 12:19:30 pm
To New Hampshire Libertarians,

It is obvious from your many posts over many months that some of you hate the West.  You continue to attack us with innuendo, insults, and digging remarks.  Okay, two can play that game.

Hank,

LIGHTEN UP!!!

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.  I've not heard one New Hampshire Libertarian denigrate any western state through innuedo or insults.  In fact, they have relied entirely upon well-researched facts.  That last post was a joke (and a pretty funny one, I thought) from someone who doesn't even live in New Hampshire.  His very serious point was that Wyoming has virtually no tech sector, while New Hampshire has a thriving one.  That's all, and that's a fact.  How can you yell at someone for pointing out a fact?  

I would also like to add that every NH Lib that I know, and I've gotten to know a dozen very well, has said that if the FSP chooses a western state, they will move there.  I said the same, from my home here in Maryland.  In contrast, the lists and forum have been filled with vitriolic posts from SOME westerners who insist that they will not, under any circumstances, move to an eastern state.  While NH boosters have been unfailingly polite in making their points, and have never said they hate the west in any way, we have been answered with needling and irrational statements that cannot, are not backed up by fact.  

This approach is, in my opinion, irrational, ridiculous, and dangerous to the future of the project and the hope of restoring liberty to our nation.  The membership will choose the state and I will go there, whether it be New Hampshire or Wyoming or Montana.  

I ask you, Hank, and the other western boosters:  Are you willing to make the same commitment?  For those that are, thank you for being open-minded.  For those that aren't, well, then I think your priorities are seriously out of alignment.
 :-\
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Karl on June 12, 2003, 12:26:40 pm
Libertarian-- I am not convinced that it will be so easy to tackle the government schools in NH.  I am definitely piqued by the state constitution and its reference to education in the state, but after some preliminary research on NH's state education, their system is well-entrenched and far along on the federal reform path.  In another post I go into this (education in each state), and ask for some NH help is understanding the court cases that lost in regards to mandatory state assessment participation.  The courts site the state constitution as the reason to why the state is bound to have mandatory assessment.  Any NH folks-- can you help shed some light on this area?

Lisa, I'm not an education reform expert, but I think you'll find that the job of education reform will be extremely difficult in any of the states.  The government education system is the way its been done for two hundred of years.  The Claremont decision that mandated state funds to schools is unpopular and controversial, and likely to be overturned, especially if NH is selected as the free state.

However, it should be noted that the constitutions of other states, particularly western states, have very strict mandates for government schools, including their existance and minimum funding.  IMO, the constitutional mandates of several western states amount to "poison pills" that preclude serious reform of education and tax cuts.  If we choose Wyoming, "Article 7" will become a dirty word.  NH does not have this bagage.  It will still be a heck of a fight though.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: StevenN on June 12, 2003, 01:09:18 pm
Quote
Since, apparently, you figure none of the states, not even NH, has a major city within it, you say "nearby". Just what is "nearby"? Note that NH has some of the longest commute times regardless of its small size.

It occured to me that, if FSP'ers are to commute to Ft. Collins, they would have to pay CO income taxes.

http://dab.nfc.usda.gov/pubs/docs/taxformulas/formulas/statecitycounty/taxco/taxco.html

This seems to state that, after exemptions, et al., CO's income tax is 4.63%. Granted, one advantage of living in WY and commuting to Ft. Collins is that you'd probably be making a fair income an low cost of living. BUT, if you're like me, you want to avoid paying taxes as much as possible for philosophical reasons, as well as for the chunk it takes out of your wallet. (A side note, I'd bet those CO statists would love us in WY. We help put $$$ in their coffers and really don't take up any services other than roads! ;D)

Regarding commutes in NH: I agree that, if you want to work a tech-job in Boston, you will have a longer commute than the Cheyenne/Ft. Collins commute. BUT, I understand that there are plenty of tech-jobs inside NH. If I want to work a tech-job in WY, I'll probably necessarily have a 45-min commute. But in NH, I could very well live down the street from my employer in Keene, Nashua, Manchester, Berlin, etc. Maybe ride a bike to work and convince people that libertarians care about the environment and are commited to doing something practical about it (I suggest this in whatever state is chosen!)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Karl on June 12, 2003, 01:18:33 pm
Regarding commutes in NH: I agree that, if you want to work a tech-job in Boston, you will have a longer commute than the Cheyenne/Ft. Collins commute. BUT, I understand that there are plenty of tech-jobs inside NH. If I want to work a tech-job in WY, I'll probably necessarily have a 45-min commute. But in NH, I could very well live down the street from my employer in Keene, Nashua, Manchester, Berlin, etc., and bike there. Maybe ride a bike to work and convince people that libertarians care about the environment and are commited to doing something practical about it (I suggest this in whatever state is chosen!)

My understanding is that most of the hi-tech industry is concentrated in Nashua, Manchester and the I-95 corridor.  Probably not much going on in Keene and Berlin.

Riding a bike to work is a great idea; New England and Western towns tend to be very bikable.  We'll all want to set a good example by living environmentally friendly when we can, and volunteering in the community.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LisaLew on June 12, 2003, 02:31:05 pm
Quote
The government education system is the way its been done for two hundred of years.  

Would you explain what you mean by this a bit firther, Karl.  Also-- I have read a bit about the Claremont decision, but do not completely understand it.  Did it mandate state monetary support of government schools rather than local support?
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Karl on June 12, 2003, 02:55:18 pm
Lisa,

By "200 years" I simply meant that education has been a primary function of government through most of American history, and that most Americans are used to thinking of it that way.

I'm also not an expert on the Claremont decision (maybe a NH resident can add to what I say here, or correct me if necissary), but basically the NH Supreme Court made an incredible and extraordinary leap in logic, overturning more than 200 years of tradition of local education, in interpreting the following clause (NH Constitution, Article 83, Sec 2) to mean that the state must "adequately" fund education:

Quote
Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; and spreading the opportunities and advantages of education through the various parts of the country, being highly conducive to promote this end; it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this gov- ernment, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools, to encourage private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections, and generous sentiments, among the people

Those justices should be impeached.

I found this web site that catalogs a lot of information related to Claremont, where you can read some of the outrageous brain-dead logic of those Justices:

http://www.mainstream.com/nhpolitics
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LisaLew on June 12, 2003, 03:11:06 pm
Karl--
Quote
By "200 years" I simply meant that education has been a primary function of government through most of American history, and that most Americans are used to thinking of it that way.

This is not correct.  Government schools were primarily set up to "educate" the masses in that were immigrating to the US, and came about at different times through out our history.  This is not the thread to discuss this in, so I will not further this part of the debate here.  I encourage you to do your own research on the state of education and education reform in the U.S.  This is going to be, and really is already, great impact ,changing and further erosion of our republic.  It impacts, and will further impact, the family unit, jobs, where you will live, and your socioeconomic status.

I thank you for the link you posted and will check it out thoroughly.

The reason I am so concerned about the education department in each state, is that is one of the greatest driving forces of change(not for the better) in the U.S.  All the other important considerations for the FSP don't amount to much if a fully entrenched, federally funded education system has been accepted by the people of the state.  That is why I am exceptionally intrigued, and concerned by NH constitution and education department.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Karl on June 12, 2003, 03:18:51 pm
This is not correct.  Government schools were primarily set up to "educate" the masses in that were immigrating to the US, and came about at different times through out our history.

Good to know.  I'm not an expert in education history or policy, so I'll defer to your much more extensive knowledge.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 12, 2003, 08:17:27 pm
As we've learned from experience with our federal Constitution, the fact that a constitution may lack some type of provision does not necessarily mean the government will not impose a mandate for it.  Nor does it mean that such a mandate can simply be overturned or ignored because strict constructionists can make a good case.

Is the Social Security program constitutional?  No, but did that stop its creation or deter the government from attempting to force participation in it?  For that matter, does it mean that the vast majority of Americans would favor doing away with it?

New Hampshire's constitution may not mandate public education, but why are some automatically assuming that this will make it simpler to do away with there?  Are the voters in New Hampshire going to go along with that?  If they don't, it won't happen, no matter what the state constitution says.  And even if you diminish or eliminate the state's role, what is to prevent counties and local governments from mandating it in their own respective jurisdictions?

I like the fact that the NH state constitution does not mandate public education, but I'd be far more impressed with some sort of data showing that NH residents favor abolishing or radically reforming the public school system itself.  Otherwise, as I believe I've demonstrated above, it matters very little what the state constitution says when compared with what the people themselves want on the state and/or local levels.  So, let's not assume that the absence of a public education mandate in the state constitution automatically means that it'll be far easier to abolish or reform mandatory public education in the state.

On the other hand, if you are able to create a groundswell of support for abolishing or radically reforming the system, then it should also be a simple matter to change a state constitution.  Thus, I do not believe that state consitutional provisions should be viewed as deal-breakers as long as they are subject to change (and they all are).

And yes, I understand that the people of New Hampshire do not like the property taxes that currently go to support public education, but I don't see this as translating into public support for abolishing it either.

Unless, of course, there is data to that effect, in which case I'd certainly be impressed with it.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Karl on June 12, 2003, 10:49:53 pm
Is the Social Security program constitutional?  No, but did that stop its creation or deter the government from attempting to force participation in it?  For that matter, does it mean that the vast majority of Americans would favor doing away with it?

Willfully ignoring the state Constitution is not a reasonable strategy for reasons that ought to be fairly obvious, not the least of which would make us hypocrits.

Quote
New Hampshire's constitution may not mandate public education, but why are some automatically assuming that this will make it simpler to do away with there?  Are the voters in New Hampshire going to go along with that?  If they don't, it won't happen, no matter what the state constitution says.  And even if you diminish or eliminate the state's role, what is to prevent counties and local governments from mandating it in their own respective jurisdictions?

You're right, it won't be easy.  Reforming education in New Hampshire will be like crossing a minefield, but in Wyoming we have to first break through the Berlin Wall, THEN cross minefield.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 12, 2003, 11:22:39 pm
Is the Social Security program constitutional?  No, but did that stop its creation or deter the government from attempting to force participation in it?  For that matter, does it mean that the vast majority of Americans would favor doing away with it?

Willfully ignoring the state Constitution is not a reasonable strategy for reasons that ought to be fairly obvious, not the least of which would make us hypocrits.

I'm not suggesting that we ignore a state constitution's provision.  The point here was just to illustrate that doing away with public education depends upon much more than just the absence of a constitutional mandate.

Quote
New Hampshire's constitution may not mandate public education, but why are some automatically assuming that this will make it simpler to do away with there?  Are the voters in New Hampshire going to go along with that?  If they don't, it won't happen, no matter what the state constitution says.  And even if you diminish or eliminate the state's role, what is to prevent counties and local governments from mandating it in their own respective jurisdictions?

Quote
You're right, it won't be easy.  Reforming education in New Hampshire will be like crossing a minefield, but in Wyoming we have to first break through the Berlin Wall, THEN cross minefield.

If we have the popular support necessary to enact our goals in the first place, then we should be able to repeal a constitutional provision rather easily.  However, if the people of New Hampshire are unwilling to relinquish public education, then it matters very little that their constitution does not mandate it.  By the same token, if the people of Wyoming are willing to relinquish public education, then they'd also be willing to remove any constitutional prohibition against doing so.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Karl on June 13, 2003, 12:09:12 am
If we have the popular support necessary to enact our goals in the first place, then we should be able to repeal a constitutional provision rather easily.  However, if the people of New Hampshire are unwilling to relinquish public education, then it matters very little that their constitution does not mandate it.  By the same token, if the people of Wyoming are willing to relinquish public education, then they'd also be willing to remove any constitutional prohibition against doing so.

You seem to suggest that Wyoming may be willing to reliquish schools, but not NH, yet there is little or no evidence to support that.  Both states, as they are now, strongly support public schools, a fact that will take great effort on our part to change.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Kelton Baker on June 13, 2003, 12:48:46 am

#34) Almost across the board, New Hampshire-region newspapers and television stations have been receptive of and fair to the Free State Project - in front-page feature articles, special television news segments, event coverage, radio interviews, editorials, and letters to the editor. Many thousands of New Hampshire citizens and the citizens of neighboring states have learned about the Free State Project in a positive way thanks to reporters from the Union Leader, Channel 9, WBZ-TV, Tiger Radio, Boston Globe, and other media outlets.
I've seen media coverage go both ways most everywhere, in fact there is no great shortage of statist media coming out of New Hampshire either.  Please consider this statement from Ben Irvin:

"I just watched KPVI Channel 6 (Pocatello, ID) coverage ofthe GWC in Missoula.  The reporter, Doug Anderson, went out of the norm to make the FSP and the GWC look fantastic.
He had close up interviews with Jason, the Stan Smith (north IDLP
Chair), and MT state representative Joe Balyeat.  The report made
the event look like a great thing...a proposition that should be of
interest to Idahoans. I don't believe that I have ever seen a TV
piece that was as biased (in our favor) as this.  After the section
was shown, the weatherman indicated that with all the great
weather southeast Idaho has been having the FSP would surely
pick Idaho.  The piece captured every word Jason said.  They
noted that Joe was a libertarian Republican."

I cannot really remember any negative articles or reports on the FSP from the New Hampshire media. One editorial said the project would not work, but other than that, I'm drawing a blank. Do you have a specific example in mind, exitus?

No, no specific example, but I didn't refer to that, also notice that I qualified that by saying "most" states.
 
I stand by my statement that New Hampshire has its share of statist media, granted it has friendly media too, but I have read plenty of online news articles out of NH promoting increased public spending on all sorts of things including education.


To NH's credit, I recently read an article on New Hampshire that was published in the National Geographic about 20 years ago that basically condemned NH and all their non-progressive ways;  I was most impressed.  I don't remember what issue it was, but I can go look it up, ask and you will receive.
747
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 13, 2003, 12:50:50 am
If we have the popular support necessary to enact our goals in the first place, then we should be able to repeal a constitutional provision rather easily.  However, if the people of New Hampshire are unwilling to relinquish public education, then it matters very little that their constitution does not mandate it.  By the same token, if the people of Wyoming are willing to relinquish public education, then they'd also be willing to remove any constitutional prohibition against doing so.

You seem to suggest that Wyoming may be willing to reliquish schools, but not NH, yet there is little or no evidence to support that.  Both states, as they are now, strongly support public schools, a fact that will take great effort on our part to change.

Again, I was just using these states in an illustration based on how their constitutions have been perceived in regard to the ease or difficulty of abolishing public education in them.  I used the idea of negative public opinion in New Hamsphire where it seems to be assumed that we would have an easier time, and, conversely, positive public opinion in Wyoming where it is perceived that we would have a more difficult time.

I believe you are right in that abolishing publicly funded education would be quite the battle in either state, regardless of their constitutional stipulations.  The whole point of it all was just to illustrate that success or failure will depend upon public opinion, and constitutions can be changed if public opinion favors what we're trying to do.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Zxcv on June 13, 2003, 02:41:46 am
Karl, you and everyone else ought to take a look at this book (first several chapters online):

The Underground History of American Education (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm)

Compulsory government schooling was first adopted in Massachusetts in 1852. Finally in 1918, the 48th state, Mississippi adopted it. Here is the time-table:

1852 Mass.
1865 D.C. (which explains why western states were forced to put this in their constitutions)
1867 Vermont
1871 New Hampshire, Wash. Territory
1872 Connecticut, New Mex. Territory
1873 Nevada
1874 New York, Kansas, California
1875 Maine, New Jersey
1876 Wyoming Territory
etc.

Looks like the Vermonters and Granite Staters back then had a lapse in their freedom tendencies, since they were such early adopters.   >:(

BTW, I have spent several years on the Separation of School & State discussion list (www.sepschool.org). I believe the consensus there is that Separation will be achieved not via government action, but from below - individual parents removing their kids. This latter process is already happening, and it of course does not matter what the various state constitutions say about schools for that.

FSP probably is not going to take on the edu-establishment head-on, even in a state like Wyoming with its relatively weak teacher unions. And it's doubtful in NH too; even though there is not the constitutional baggage, the teachers unions are stronger there, and they have allies in the courts, obviously.

But we can speed up the process of Separation by opening up alternatives to government schooling, e.g. remove regulations on private schools and homeschooling, tax credits (NOT vouchers or any other subsidy) for private schoolers and homeschoolers, and simply a big tax cut. Again, none of these will run aground on constitutional issues.

Quote
You seem to suggest that Wyoming may be willing to reliquish schools, but not NH, yet there is little or no evidence to support that.  
Actually we heard from some Wyoming folks that quite a few schools are shutting down there, for lack of students. It would be interesting to see if there is some site on the internet that tracks school closings...

Quote
Quote
WY outshines NH on 2 of our 3 broad-based economic indices.
 

Then your indices are a joke or else cooked. Wyoming's economy cannot hold a candle to New Hampshire's. Without good jobs, this project will not succeed.

George, perhaps you have a mistaken impression what these indices are about. Two of them, SBSI and EFI, are included in the standard spreadsheet. The third, EFNA, is in my big spreadsheet, and may be found here: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=453

I'm confident you will find they are not a joke, nor cooked.

Quote
Our goal is to free the state, not to "warm" its economy -- taking on additional challenges is to our detriment, not our advantage.  

Yes, Karl, the goal is to free one state, and with that in mind we needn't worry about demonstrating the benefits of freedom to anyone else. We can just go live in our one free state.

However, the initial statement on the home page has this phrase, "demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world." Presumably some people in FSP are thinking about the long term as well.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: FTL_Ian on June 13, 2003, 04:14:37 am
Quote
Also, folks south of the Mason Dixon Line ain't gonna move to Yankee land.

     I live in Florida.  For the possibility of freedom, I'll take the weather.

Ian
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: BobW on June 13, 2003, 08:34:06 am
Hi Zxcv,

That education book site is super.  I only glanced at about 5% of it but something hit me cold.

At http://www.world-prosperity.org  ref the book reviewed "A Different Kind of Teacher", it mentions that the US industralists were afraid of a Russian style revolution.

I have material on this same thesis from a different facet, the business issues.  A lot of things aren't coincidences, eg public funding of residential mortgages, retirement programs built into the job package, etc.

I don't follow education but I see common denominators.

BobW
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on June 13, 2003, 09:31:38 am
Which two of three? Here's what the report had to say about Economic health in NH and WY... Though it never does explain what is meant by many of their terms...

New Hampshire
New Hampshire ranks 5th overall in the all-government
measurement for 2000 and 6th in the state and local
index. While the state ranked 38th in the all-government
index in 1981, it has steadily improved since, and
the 1st place fi nish this year and last is its highest ever.
The state has risen from just over 80% of the national
GDP in 1981 to 109%. New Hampshire has no general
sales and use tax and its effective state and local sales
tax burden is 48th among the 50 states. In the size of
government rankings, New Hampshire holds the top
spot in state and local and all-government rankings.
For takings and discriminatory taxation, it’s 2nd on
both lists. Then, it slips on the economic banana peel:
29th in the all-government list for labor market freedom
and 30th in state and local.


Wyoming
Wyoming ranks 9th overall in the all-government
measurement. Between 1981 and 1997, it never
ranked lower than 4th, although the 2000 rankings
was a bounce back from the 12th it received in 1999. It
was 25th in the state and local index. Its strongest ratings
are in labor market freedom: 11th in all-government
and 13th in state and local. In takings and taxation
it ranks 20th and 17th, respectively. Wyoming’s
one bad slip comes in the state and local list for size
of government, where it rates only 42nd; its all-government
ranking in the category is 19th. Wyoming
is a relatively low-tax state—its effective state and
local tax burden is 38th among the 50 states at 9.8%.
Its general sales and use tax is low among the states
that charge it at 4%. It beer tax of 2¢ is the lowest in
the country, and its cigarette and gasoline taxes are
among the lowest.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LisaLew on June 13, 2003, 10:18:10 am
Zxcv-- thanks for the two links you posted.  As I have continued my research of the various state's education dept., regarding Wyoming vs NH, Wyoming appears to have a state culture of less enmeshed by national ed. reform.  Their state assessment is new, and appears to be only to comply with NCLB.  NH has had a state assessment since 1993 or 1994 (Can't remember the start up year off hand).  That correlates with the other states that wanted to jump on the Goals 2000/STW bandwagon from the start.  When districts began changing to standard based systems (OBE), the assessment was an important hammer to comply with the system.

Thanks again for posting those two sites.
Title: FreeStateNH.com updated!
Post by: jgmaynard on June 13, 2003, 01:02:55 pm
FreeStateNH.com now available!

Are you excited about the Free State Project? Have you heard all the wonderful things about New Hampshire, which makes the “Live Free or Die” state the best choice for the Free State Project? Maybe you have lost track of all the different pages, and wished they were all together in one place for easy access. You've got your wish!
At http://www.freestatenh.com, you now have a central hub for all FSP-NH pages, as well as Free State Project links, and New Hampshire information and data. As time goes on, the site will be updated with more New Hampshire news and information.
For porcupines looking to head the the Escape to New Hampshire trip, www.freestatenh.com offers directions from five different areas, including directions from Vermont, Massachusetts and Maine. The site also features the HOT new “101 Reasons to vote for New Hampshire” list by Michelle Dumas.
It's sister site, http://www.freestatenhlive.com, has received hundreds of visitors from around the country, and is already one of the highest rated sites for New Hampshire webcams on Yahoo, AOL, Google and more!
Visit http://www.freestatenh.com and explore some of the many reasons to choose New Hampshire as the best choice for the Free State.

Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 13, 2003, 04:47:50 pm
Any NH folks-- can you help shed some light on this area?

Lisa -

You are obviously much more knowledgeable in this area than I am, and you have already received some really great answers to your questions about NH. I don't really have much to add.

But - if you live anywhere close to NH - I just received notice that we will have representatives from two NH educational reform/school choice organizations at Escape to NH. If you aren't attending and want to email me a list of questions, I'll try to get them answered for you.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LisaLew on June 14, 2003, 01:29:29 am
Hi Michelle-- I do not live close to NH at all, so I will not be attending the NH Great Escape.  I will take you up on your offer to send a few questions, though.  Let me know when you need them by, and I will post them.
Regards--LisaLew
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 14, 2003, 10:23:17 am
Hi Michelle-- I do not live close to NH at all, so I will not be attending the NH Great Escape.  I will take you up on your offer to send a few questions, though.  Let me know when you need them by, and I will post them.
Regards--LisaLew

Lisa - the Escape event starts next Saturday (a week from today). I'll be leaving Saturday morning and will probably go offline Friday afternoon. The best way to be sure I get your questions is email (mdumas@lpnh.org) but feel free to post them publicly if you wish and I'll try to remember to keep checking for them.
Title: Re:FreeStateNH.com now available!
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 14, 2003, 11:33:18 am
Nice site!  Good work!

NH looks a lot like VT, but NH has more mountains.    :)

Two recommendations:
 1. What NH citizens say about the FSP.
 2. MORE PICTURES!!!  NH is beautiful!
Title: Re:FreeStateNH.com now available!
Post by: jgmaynard on June 14, 2003, 12:09:52 pm
Nice site!  Good work!

NH looks a lot like VT, but NH has more mountains.    :)

Two recommendations:
 1. What NH citizens say about the FSP.
 2. MORE PICTURES!!!  NH is beautiful!

Thank you.

They are pretty similar.

1) Good idea
2) That's what http://www.freestatenhlive.com is for! ;)

JM
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: scottrk29 on June 14, 2003, 10:52:38 pm
        Joe wrote-                                                                                                                         Would there be jobs for a tour conductor, or an ex-store manager, or "politician" in New Hampshire (or all three combined) that pay at least $40 K per year? (that figure is what a county commissioner here would make in 2004 -- and that is with medical benefits -- an important issue for this going over the hill guy).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          I hope whatever state we live in  NO Politician will call his office a career, it should be done in the best interests of his community and not for profit.  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Just my two cents,
                                                                                                                                                         Scott                                                                          
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: scottrk29 on June 15, 2003, 12:11:44 am

Serving in office on the front lines of such defense takes a helluva lot of time and effort because we are outnumbered and always under a lot of pressure to "make a law" or not permit somebody to do something which is an individual right or a property right.  Unless you've served in a legislative or policy-making or quasi-judicial office you may not realize just how much pressure can be brought to bear and how much time and energy it takes to resist that pressure.

Some of us who are on an economic shoestring already can not well afford the time it takes and the economic repurcussions of fighting the public demand for "more government intervention".

                                                                                                                                      Then i guess the N.H. state legislature will not be your calling. If the other posts are correct $250.00 for a two year term would not be worth it.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 15, 2003, 07:15:46 am
Just a note to say that I updated the pdf to reflect Alaska's new gun rights status and to fix a couple of typos  :-[

http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-Vote-NH.pdf
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Zxcv on June 15, 2003, 11:15:07 am
James, the report you cited was the EFNA report, the one I added to my big spreadsheet. It shows NH ahead of WY.

The other two, EFI (http://freedom.clemson.edu/report.color.PDF) and SBSI (http://www.sbsc.org/Media/pdf/SBSI2002A.pdf), on the standard spreadsheet, show WY ahead of NH. I'm posting the links here so people don't have to dig into the spreadsheet. BTW, that EFI link takes a long time to load, be patient.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: stpeter on June 15, 2003, 05:16:45 pm
101 Reasons to Vote for New Hampshire as the Free State

Download the full-color report with sources, graphs, charts, and photos:
http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-Vote-NH.pdf

Hi Michelle, I've just had a chance to read the PDF version. You did a great job! Kudos indeed.
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: stpeter on June 15, 2003, 05:41:20 pm
If I made 100K on interest income and tried to live off that in NH with a 1m house on Lake Merrimack, I'd pay:

NH is not CA. I doubt there are many $1 million homes in all of NH. I know there aren't where I grew up in Maine, which is pretty comparable to most of NH. Cashing in your CA residence will take you far in any of the free state candidates.
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: jgmaynard on June 16, 2003, 10:35:30 pm
The place that is today called Strawbery Banke has a long and rich history, stretching back three and a half centuries to the earliest years of English settlement in New England. In 1630 Englishmen chose this site for a plantation called Strawbery Banke, named for the profusion of wild berries they had found near the river. By the eighteenth century the site was a thriving waterfront neighborhood in animportant seaport called Portsmouth; in the nineteenth century it changed into an immigrant neighborhood named Puddle Dock; and by the latter half of the twentieth century it had recaptured its original name as an outdoor history museum. Throughout these centuries of change people lived and worked here, experiencing in a small, personal way, the major events and currents of America's history.

For all these reasons (and the really GREAT rock candy I got there as a kid), Strawberry Banke is freestatenhlive's NH Hot spot of the week!
Visit it at http://www.freestatenhlive.com
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on June 16, 2003, 10:52:29 pm
We are currently working on a paper version of the "101 reasons" to pass out at he Escape, for those porcupines who will be attending.

Hope to see you all there!

JM
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: jgmaynard on June 20, 2003, 02:26:01 pm
That is SOOOO funny! I came really, really close to making it Hampton Beach this week....  ::)
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: shere on June 23, 2003, 02:05:31 pm
Could anyone give me a rough estimate on what about 5 acres of grazing land with the bare necessities for living would cost in NH?

I'm not asking for others to research it for me, I just thought that someone in NH might be able to give me a rough guess.

Thanks.
Title: Re:Where to locate in New Hampshire
Post by: jgmaynard on June 24, 2003, 08:08:45 am
Hi Shere.....

Most NH supporters from around the country are at the Escape right now... Rich Tomasso and I are back at least for a little bit, but we'll try to get info to you before too long.
Like most states, property values vary widely from town to town. A good place to start is the classifieds section of the Union Leader (NH's only state-wide paper). http://www.theunionleader.com
In the meantime, check out the classifieds above, and let me know what you find.
Ciao!

JM
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 29, 2003, 11:17:18 pm
Michelle's report is very detailed and well-researched; however, there are some items in it that I believe deserve closer scrutiny in light of the general claim that this list makes New Hampshire the best state for FSP success.  I've outlined the most prominent of those items in the following few posts and hope that they can be considered and discussed constructively.  They are not intended to be negative by any means, so I hope they won't be taken that way.   :)

Quote
#1 through #6) For more than 200 years, New Hampshire has held fast to the values of self-reliance, small government, and independence. For its symbolic significance, there is no state more suited to the Free State Project...

The historical precedent set by New Hampshire for the Free State Project is simply unmatched by any other state under consideration. The spirit of independence lives on today.

Reasons 1-6 that fall under this header of "Historical Precedent" all point to rich and interesting history, but are they really reasons to vote for New Hampshire today, 200 years later?  I don't mean to sound nitpicky here, but what has happened in New Hampshire since that time to indicate that such a spirit of independence still lives there?

I think it's also worth mentioning that nearly 100 years after waging a battle for its own independence, New Hampshire sent troops into the South as part of a usurper president's efforts to suppress another independence movement.  A decidedly negative legacy, and quite a contradiction to its own efforts in the name of liberty some years earlier.

Quote
#9) New Hampshire offers the best representation of any state NATIONWIDE with our 400-member House of Representatives.

Our success in creating a free state will largely depend upon our ability to build a majority in the state legislature.  In fact, if you go back and read Jason's analysis of the PQ in Quebec (http://freestateproject.org/strategies.htm), you'll discover that his ideas for how many activists might be required in order to achieve a free state focused on what it took the PQ to gain a parliamentary majority.

I believe that building a legislative majority will be a significant problem for us in New Hampshire, as we would have to elect over 200 libertarians to the House just to take control of that one wing.  That means finding 200 activists willing to serve in the state capital in addition to those needed to serve in various local government offices and run for the state Senate, which, although it is much smaller than the House, is subject to the largest districts of any of our candidate states.

Consequently, success in New Hamsphire will require a significantly larger number of our activists to be both willing and effective due to the sheer number of offices that we must hold on both the state and local level in order to be appropriately influential.  In other words, it subjects our prospects for success to a higher number of factors that we cannot anticipate or control, such as how many will be willing to run for all of these offices we must secure.  Personally, I believe that we stand a much better chance for success by working for control of a smaller legislature where the hurdle to achieving a majority is not nearly so great, and where more of those willing to run for office can spread out between both state and local positions.  This would allow us to achieve a more thorough saturation of offices in our state, ensuring a better chance at actually accomplishing our agenda in a reasonable amount of time.

More on this in some of the later, related points...

Quote
#10) New Hampshire offers the best true citizen legislature - a government "of the people" -based on our $100 per year pay to legislators.

There's more to a citizen legislature than the pay rate.  For instance, it's been noted that nearly one quarter of New Hampshire House members are lawyers and government employees.  Is this representative of New Hampshire's population?  

And how many activists are we going to be able to find who will be able to afford to take time off to serve in the legislature for $100 a year?  Bear in mind here that we're going to need many more activists willing to serve in the New Hampshire legislature as it is, and now, not only are we going to have to find such a large number, but we're going to have to find a large number who are willing to work for that level of compensation.  Thus we've just made an already high hurdle even higher.  What does this factor do to our overall chances of success?  I ask this question particularly in light of the fact that much of the effort to sell New Hampshire to the FSP is directed toward those who are looking to make good money.  

Quote
#11) New Hampshire's constitution is one of only two constitutions among the ten states that does not mandate the provision of a public school system.
To abolish government-controlled schools in any other state would require a constitutional amendment.

Simply lacking a constitutional provision for public schools does not mean that we will necessarily be able to rid ourselves of them.  For that, we'll need a majority of voters on our side.  And if we do have the majority we need in order to abolish public schools, then passing a constitutional amendment to allow for their abolition would not be a problem.  Thus, either way, I don't see this a major advantage or disadvantage for a state.  

Quote
#12) Some state constitutions, other than New Hampshire's specifically prohibit secession. While this is not a goal of the Free State Project, it could be a critical bargaining chip during negotiations with the federal government.

This is another area where a constitutional provision or lack thereof will prove insignificant compared to the will of the people of a given state.  If they are of a mind to secede, they'll change the state's constitution to allow it.  If they're not of a mind to secede, it won't matter that the constitution allows it.  It won't happen.

Also, I believe New Hampshire is in a rather poor position for secession.  As one of the original thirteen states, New Hampshire's secession would probably raise the patriotic rancor of the American public to a higher degree than any other candidate state except Delaware (due to its "first state" status, as well as its proximity to Washington DC).  

New Hampshire's secession would also separate Maine from the rest of the country, a fact that would undoubtedly raise substantial objections as well.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 29, 2003, 11:29:51 pm
Quote
#13) If New Hampshire is chosen it will mean having a FREE STATE PROJECT MEMBER ALREADY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES!

It's true! At least one FSP member is already a member of the New Hampshire legislature. By choosing New Hampshire, we gain a head start on achieving the FSP goal of electing members to office to work within the political system in order to reduce the size and scope of government!

This is good news, but it still leaves us needing around 200 or so more to achieve a majority there...waaay more than we would need elsewhere.  I don't see why we should deliberately tackle the more difficult challenge, particularly when so many of us believe that time is not on our side.

Quote
#14) If New Hampshire is chosen it will mean having a LIBERTARIAN AND FREE STATE PROJECT MEMBER ALREADY APPOINTED TO AN OFFICIAL POSITION BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE!

Again, it's true! John Babiarz, chair of the LPNH and FSP member, has been appointed by Governor Benson to the Efficiency in Government Commission, a commission formed to streamline and downsize New Hampshire state government. By choosing New Hampshire, we clearly gain a head start on reducing the size and scope of government!!

This is also a good thing, if the committee is actually taken seriously.  One problem right now is that the governor's fellow GOP'ers in the state legislature do not see eye-to-eye with the governor on what the size and scope of government should be, and they control the budget and, therefore, the size and scope of government.  If this legislature is not prepared to go along with their GOP governor's cuts in services, what makes us think they'll go along with the recommendations of a libertarian-headed commission?  A commission that could only recommend cutting government even further than Benson is probably prepared to do?

Not only do GOP legislators disagree with the governor, some have gone so far as to label him "incompetent," and they may have the votes to override his budget veto.  Check out the following articles from New Hampshire newspapers to see something of the political atmosphere there right now.  There appears to be no love lost between the governor and the legislature.

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=23028
http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/news/opinion/editoria2003/edit062503_2003.shtml

A recent poll (http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/062203_benson_bush_poll_2003.shtml) also showed Benson's popularity at a level that will make New Hampshire's next election interesting.  I really wish we had another election cycle between us and this vote in order to see how the people of New Hampshire will rate the Benson administration.

Quote
#15) If New Hampshire is chosen it will mean having LIBERTY-MINDED FRIENDS IN THE EXISTING NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGISLATURE.

At least several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives have attended Free State Project meetings and publicly voiced support for the Free State Project coming to New Hampshire. Free State Project members and the political activity they bring will be welcome in New Hampshire!

We've had politicians in several states voice support for us, so this is not unique to New Hampshire.  But on the subject of New Hampshire itself, will these House members be enough to help the FSP obtain reforms even beyond that which the House is not currently willing to grant a GOP governor?

Quote
#16) New Hampshire's Governor Benson is receptive to the Free State Project and has been gracious in his agreement to meet with FSP members. Governor Benson is a friend of the Libertarians, even scheduled as a speaker at the LPNH 2003 Convention.

New Hampshire supporters also make the argument (#8 on this list) that their governor is the weakest in the nation.  How much will Benson be able to help the FSP implement its agenda from that position of weakness, particularly since his own party has applied the brakes to his agenda in the state legislature?

Quote
#18) New Hampshire offers the critical advantage of allowing fusion candidates. A fusion candidate is defined as one who has been nominated by two or more parties, and appears on the general ballot with all parties noted.
The advantage is absolutely essential to our success. It means the ability to run as a Libertarian-Republican or even as a Libertarian-Republican-Democrat, capturing all of the straight-ticket votes.

How successful is this strategy in New Hampshire? In the 2002 election, 59 seats of 400, or 15% of the House, was won with fusion!  Every single fusion candidate on the general ballot won!  In 1992, 2 Libertarians won seats using just this method.

Fusion is something that should be fairly simple to implement in the voting system of any state we choose - it just makes a lot of sense, for one thing, and should be fairly appealing to the population.  

However, I would respond to the above argument that this system is only absolutely essential for us if New Hampshire is chosen because the hurdle to legislative control there is so very high already.  We'd need every possible advantage we could get there.  In states with smaller legislatures (and small districts), the hurdle to legislative control is going to be much lower than in New Hampshire, even with the advantage of fusion.  States like Wyoming have small districts, a small legislature, and the added advantage of term limits, all of which will combine to give us a very promising shot at legislative dominance in a reasonable amount of time.

Besides, you seem to be attributing the victories of those candidates who ran under "fused" tickets solely to the issue of fusion.  Are you saying here that 15% of the House was elected because of fusion, or 15% of those elected to the House ran on "fused" tickets?  There's quite a difference there.  Running on a fused ticket does not necessarily guarantee you success, and I would wager that those who did win on "fused" tickets won due to some other factors as well: campaigning, contributions, activist support, etc...

Quote
#19) In New Hampshire you have the opportunity to completely OVERHAUL THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES every other year as we are one of only two states to run elections on the biennial cycle.

The state House of Representatives will be the most important body we can control in any of these states, and I believe they are all up for election every two years.  If we control this house, we control the purse strings of government, which then means that it can't grow unless we allow it to.  It might be a good idea to overhaul both branches every two years, but it does not represent a deal-maker in New Hampshire, or a deal-breaker for any other state.

Quote
#20) The New Hampshire voter population makeup hints at its citizens' spirit of independence and a dissatisfaction with major parties; a huge potential opportunity for a third party - Approximately 37% are registered Republicans and 27% are registered Democrats but a full 36% are registered Independents.

New Hampshire's voting-age population is nearly one million strong (the 2nd largest of our 10 states, after Maine), once again increasing the hurdle we could face in attempting to either garner support, or fight off opposition.  To succeed in New Hampshire, we'll have to win over a much larger electorate than we would have to win in other states, which could be a significant problem for us if New Hampshire voters are not impressed with us.

New Hampshire's House districts may be small, but there are many, many of them, and we'll feel the size of its overall voting population in the Senate and statewide races.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 29, 2003, 11:41:13 pm
Quote
#21) Geographically, New Hampshire is the perfect size to optimize and facilitate campaigns. 180 miles long and 50 miles wide with an extreme width of 93 miles, within a matter of hours you can reach any corner of the state by car. Contrast this with some of the large western states. To effectively execute a statewide campaign in one of these states, an airplane would be necessary - an expense that our competitors may be able to afford, but one that will not be an option for most FSP candidates.

1. New Hampshire's small size and accessibility will also be an advantage for groups that might want to campaign against us.  Unions are very good at staging rallies like this, as is the NAACP.  These groups could organize protests and bus in supporters from very short distances.  Boston and New York are full of statist sympathizers and they are quite close to New Hampshire.  Bussing activists in would be a piece of cake for them.  Media outlets would also be close by to cover such events.

2. As someone has said, all politics "is local."  Most campaigning that goes on, whether for county, state-wide, and even national office, occurs at the local level: local activists getting together within the confines of their own towns and cities to hold rallies, operate phone banks, pass out literature, stuff envelopes, write letters, set up booths, distribute yard signs, etc.  Most activists do not travel far from where they live and work and technology has made them even more independently effective than ever.  The ones who travel the most are the candidates themselves, and even most of them do not have far to go unless they're running for statewide offices such as state senator or governor.  Other candidates have no need to travel outside of their towns, counties, or districts as they have a narrower constituency to reach.

If the FSP were to choose a state like Wyoming or Montana, the distances between cities would not present so much of a daunting challenge to activism given that most of us would not be scattered out "in the bush country."  We'd either be in or near the major population centers, and thus close enough to get together pretty much whenever we needed to within our own local clusters.  Our western candidate states are more "urbanized" when it comes to this factor, as the population of our eastern states is more spread out via numerous towns and smaller cities.  

Oddly enough, even though the eastern towns are closer to one another, I believe they would serve to scatter our numbers and resources to a greater extent than western cities that are farther apart from one another.  The point here is that having a population that is scattered to a higher degree has the potential to diminish our effectiveness by erecting more numerous barriers between us.  Town A and Town B may be five miles apart, but if they are truly independent entities, then they might as well be 5,000 miles apart when it comes to voting or running for office: you can't do it in both, so their proximity really doesn't matter all that much.  States with more concentrated populations may be easier for us to influence because they will be more conducive to allowing larger numbers of us to vote and run for office within the same districts.

There are extremes on both side of this, of course.  Alaska is the extreme when it comes to the concentrated population side because Anchorage holds over 40% of the state's population, while Vermont is the extreme when it comes to a scattered population.

Far from being a disadvantage, I believe this is another area where Wyoming really shines.  With most of the population and economic opportunity in the Casper and Cheyenne areas, we can anticipate that most of our membership will also end up in these areas.  That means that more of us will be clustered together so as to support one another to the highest degree in both local and state politics.

And if FSPer's decided to meet between Cheyenne and Casper once or twice a year, that would effectively mean that most FSPer's would be only 150 miles apart from one another anyway.  Other than that, most of our work would be local.  I don't see why we would need to meet en mass more frequently than once or twice a year anyway, no matter where we went.

For the above reasons, the size of our western candidate states should not be considered a disadvantage. In fact, their size lends them a potential advantage over New Hampshire for our purposes, an advantage often overlooked in our discussions.  Because these states are so large, the potential exists for us to create new states out of a few of their present counties should we run into insurmountable resistance in our efforts to build majorities in the existing state governments.  Should this option come into play, the western states provide plenty of counties large enough to give us room for growth and access to resources for greater self-sufficiency.

Quote
#22) New Hampshire offers smaller, easier to canvass, more winnable districts than any other state under consideration.

New Hampshire offers the smallest districts in the NATION.

Small districts guarantee success! If the goal of the Free State Project is to WIN and to work WITHIN THE POLITICAL SYSTEM, small districts far outweigh population arguments.

Small districts do not guarantee success, even with fusion!  The people in those districts still have to be persuaded to vote for you over the other candidates, and support from other porcupines will still be critical.  The problem I see with New Hampshire again here is that its small districts are so numerous (due to its higher population) that FSP activists would have to be scattered over many districts to gain a majority in the state House.  But the more scattered we are, the less we will be able to support one another.  So, either we're scattered to try and gain a majority, and are, therefore, numerically weaker throughout these districts, or else we concentrate in only a few districts in order to control local governments there and forego attempting to control the legislature.

The concentrated population in Wyoming is a good contrast here.  The districts are small, yet there are fewer of them, so they will not have such a tendency to scatter us.  This is the advantage of having a lower, more concentrated population.  More of us will be campaigning and supporting one another in the same districts, thus giving us the advantage of our combined strength on both the local AND state levels.  There are also far fewer seats to win in order to obtain control of the legislature.

Quote
#24) New Hampshire has the smallest state and local government sectors among the ten states:

It has been pointed out before that this is on a per capita basis.  As Zxcv said, Wyoming's government is only 45% the size of New Hampshire's.

Quote
#25) New Hampshire has the lowest percentage of government employees among the ten states:

New Hampshire has the lowest percentage, of government employees, but it has the highest total number of them.  Remember that the FSP is looking to introduce a certain number of activists into a state's population, not a certain percentage.  We can look at the percentages, obviously, but when we compare our strength to that of potential opposition, we should look more at the sheer numbers involved.  Percentages won't be what impresses legislators or the general public at rallies, for instance.   ;)

Quote
#26) New Hampshire and Idaho have the lowest percentage of NEA/AFT members among the ten states:

Again, the lowest percentage, yes.  But it also has the highest total number of NEA/AFT members (11,834).  This is as compared to Wyoming's 5,713 (the lowest number).  Also, New Hampshire empowers the teachers union more strongly than Wyoming does because it grants them both monopoly bargaining rights AND forced dues.  Wyoming is the only FSP candidate state that denies the teachers unions both monopoly bargaining AND forced dues.  Thus, in New Hampshire, we'll face the largest number of unionized teachers, and they'll be at their strongest potential.

Quote
#27) New Hampshire is actively seeking to reduce the size and scope of government, cut costs, and improve efficiency.

This is true to an extent, but New Hampshire's legislature is not willing to go as far as its governor wants to go, particularly in the Senate.  It appears that many in the governor's own party feel that state government is small enough, and that further reducing it "harms" the people of New Hampshire.  Only another election cycle will tell which side New Hampshire's voters will come down on.  For now, the battle is quite fierce, and I can only wonder how the legislature would receive our libertarian agenda if they are putting up such a fight over a conservative Republican agenda:

By turning a hackneyed metaphor into a provocative act, Benson only aggravated his troubled relationship with the leaders of the House and Senate - all fellow Republicans.

"What is he doing?" asked Senate Majority Leader Bob Clegg, a conservative Republican from Hudson. "This isn't a campaign trail. This is the business of keeping New Hampshire running and supplying the services that are necessary."


http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/062603budget_2003.shtml (http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/062603budget_2003.shtml)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 29, 2003, 11:51:12 pm
Quote
#28) New Hampshire has a long tradition of transparency in the legislative and executive branches.

This may be changing.  Republicans in the New Hampshire Senate are in support of secret measures:

All that’s left with making both approvals official is concurrence by the House, Members of both political parties often retreat behind closed doors to get the troops in line on a particular issue or to hatch strategies. That’s been going on for years and shouldn’t have. However, the approved amendment would now legally exempt the practice in case anyone challenges it. It also exempts other partisan bodies, such as the Executive Council and county commissioners.

All 17 Republican senators voted to exempt these secret partisan confabs from public view and the six Democrats voted against.

The vote makes a sham of the Right-to-Know Law by allowing members of the Legislature to reach “deals” outside public view on matters that affect the people.


http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=358&ArticleID=80947 (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=358&ArticleID=80947)

Quote
#29) New Hampshire is well known for our first-in-the-nation primaries that will provide the FSP with UNMATCHED leverage in the national debate.

Once we begin winning state- and local-level offices in New Hampshire we will add real strength to liberty-oriented national candidates at primary and debate time. The benefits of liberty and freedom will be broadcast to the nation and the world in an unprecedented way. Like-minded advocates of small government all over the U.S. would finally have a roadmap and example to follow.

If our goal is to serve as an example - eventually expanding true liberty past the Free State borders - there is no better state to choose than New Hampshire.

I'm not trying to be mean here, but the nation focuses on New Hampshire only for a brief period every four years, and then promptly forgets about it until the next presidential election year.  New Hampshire is not in a national leadership position.  Even New Hampshire's neighboring states are not following its example, despite its considerable degree of freedom, so why should we expect the rest of the nation to care what it does?  

The stated argument also assumes that we will have an influential voice in the New Hampshire primary.  It ignores the fact that we would be but 20,000 or so in state with nearly one million voting-age inhabitants.  There is no guarantee that we will be an influential voice in this event.  Besides, do we really believe that the nation's media and political elites are going to hand us some sort of concession for any influence we wield there?  Did they do this when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?  Did they take him (or New Hampshire) more seriously?  Or did they just continue to call Buchanan an extremist abberation in American politics?

The mere existence of this primary does not guarantee us an influential voice in it, nor does it guarantee us that any influence we exercised would be admired or emulated by the rest of the country.  This should not be a major consideration in our decision.  There is potential there, yes, but the "unmatched leverage" you speak of is purely hypothetical, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Quote
#30) New Hampshire offers the best chance to achieve clean elections.

The measures you outline could be implemented in any state.  Further, there is no reason to believe that voter fraud is a problem in any of our candidate states simply because they currently lack New Hampshire's system.

Quote
#32) New Hampshire is the state with the best chance of ending the government monopoly on the school system.

The unpopularity of the Claremont decisions does not necessarily mean that New Hampshire voters want to end the government monopoly on their school system; they just don't like the way it is currently being funded.  There is no evidence to suggest that New Hampshire residents favor school privatization to a greater degree than any other state.  State-sponsored public education has a long, engrained history in New England.

Quote
#33) New Hampshire local elections are mostly nonpartisan.

This offers and excellent opportunity for FSP members to focus on the message rather than the political label, win local offices, and demonstrate first hand, the benefits of liberty. The LPNH has clearly demonstrated this advantage by electing more Libertarians to office than any other state in the NATION.

Simply putting a label on something does not make it so.  Local elections may be nonpartisan in name, but this does not eliminate the fact that the candidates themselves are still backed by political parties and advocate specific political agendas.  You mention the LPNH candidates.  Are they nonpartisan too?  Are they not backed by a political machine?  Are they not working for a specific agenda?  

No matter which party a candidate is from, he or she will likely tell you that they are running on ideas, and the absence of an open party label does not change that.

Quote
#35) New Hampshire does not suffer from the unfortunate and unfair characterization by the media that many of the western states have been subjected to. If our goal is to establish a beachhead of freedom that will serve as an example of freedom to the rest of the nation and world, New Hampshire is the best choice. If we choose a western state we run a serious risk of immediately being stigmatized by the media.

Libertarians in general have been stigmatized by the media and subjected to unfortunate and unfair characterizations.  Western or eastern, what reason do we have to believe that this will change anytime soon?  New Hampshire does not hold any special esteem in the eyes of the American people to any degree that I've noticed.  They seem indifferent to it except for once every four years, and even then they merely note that New Hampshire is "historically conservative."  The media pundits actually say that with a smile; I remember watching them do it when Buchanan won in New Hampshire.  They brushed it off.

It should also be noted that New Hampshire is located within close proximity to major Leftist media and political centers on the East Coast.  These groups could exercise influence on us in New Hampshire to a degree that they could not equal in the more distant western states where national opinion has historically meant less to the people overall.  I feel very strongly that we should be more concerned with selling our ideas to the people of our state than with what the nation as a whole thinks.  If we cannot establish ourselves in one state, then there will be no beachhead at all, no example to point to.  Let's not put the cart before the horse here.   We should crow only when we have something to crow about.   ;)
 
Quote
#36) New Hampshire voters will not be as influenced by federal government farm subsidies as they will be in other states.

Farm subsidies are a genuine concern, but there is opportunity there as well.  New Hampshire gets its share of federal money as well though.  In fact, had it not been for $80 million in federal funds this year, New Hampshire would not have been able to balance its budget.  Of all our candidate states, Wyoming is the only one with a balanced budget and a large reserve fund - $1.8 billion.  Wyoming has made headlines because of that fact lately.  Wyoming is also the least federally dependent western FSP candidate.

Quote
#37) The bulk of the nation's population is concentrated east of the Mississippi. By going where the population is we have the opportunity to establish a credible, mainstream political movement and beachhead in the fight for freedom. By choosing a western state we run the risk of immediately isolating and stigmatizing the movement.

The bulk of the nation's population is statist and views libertarians as extremists.  By choosing to be a libertarian at all, you choose to run the risk of isolating and stigmatizing yourself.  West or East, it makes very little difference.  There is no evidence to suggest that locating in New Hampshire will change the way the majority of the nation's population views libertarians and libertarian ideas.  Many Americans are actually frightened by libertarian ideas.  How will the "bulk of the nation's population" likely react when Leftist media elites and politicians try telling them that they have a "bunch of gun, dope and prostitution fanatics" "endangering" and "corrupting" their children?

They'll paint us as an eastern extremist movement; a change of venue, not perspective.  They'll still look at us as lunatics, and some who might otherwise side with us will not do so just to save their hard-earned reputations from the political and media onslaught.  Easterners are arguably more image-conscious, and are, therefore, more likely to be intimidated by media and social pressure.  Westerners are used to being portrayed as "weirdos," and are less likely to be influenced by what the elites think of them.  

Media and political elites care less about what happens in the West in general.  They're not likely to go to the same efforts to demonize us in Montana or Wyoming as they would in one of our eastern candidates, and the populations of Wyoming and Montana would very likely be less receptive to such a characterization.  Again, they're used to such treatment, and they think very little of the media and political elite as it is.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 30, 2003, 12:05:07 am
Quote
#38) New Hampshire offers a broad-based, dynamic economy with growth potential and many strengths.

The reality is that it will take money to achieve success with the Free State Project. Yes, any libertarian state will eventually grow and thrive, but how long can members wait for that to happen? If jobs are scarce in the first few years, if money is tight, and if it is difficult to support a family, how long will it be before we begin losing activists to reality? For success, it is essential that we choose a state where our members will thrive economically from the start and be able to immediately begin working for and contributing toward the achievement of FSP goals.

You seem to be assuming that all states are equal here in terms of the foundation for our success; they are not.  Not all states will require 20,000 activists to achieve the same degree of FSP saturation as we would require in New Hampshire.  The following list demonstrates that we can achieve Jason's 1 to 62 activist-to-resident ratio in most states with fewer members than we would need in New Hampshire:

State Total Pop. # of Activists required for 1 to 62 ratio (2005 Census population projections):

Wyoming - 568,000 (9,161)
Vermont - 638,000 (10,290)
North Dakota - 677,000 (10,919)
Alaska - 700,000 (11,290)
Delaware - 800,000 (12,903)
South Dakota - 810,000 (13,065)
Montana - 1,006,000 (16,226)
New Hampshire - 1,281,000 (20,661)
Maine - 1,285,000 (20,726)
Idaho - 1,480,000 (23,871)

Given the above numbers, it is actually New Hampshire (along with Maine and Idaho) that must live up to higher expections when it comes to job availability, not the lower population states.  We could quite likely succeed in Wyoming or Alaska with much fewer than 20,000 activists, thus we would not necessarily need New Hampshire's job market for success.  And if we get 20,000 or more in those states, then as Zxcv is fond of saying, that would be "an embarassment of riches."

Quote
# 39 through # 43) Unlike any other state, New Hampshire has a history of electing and re-electing Libertarians to office.

Not all individuals with libertarian beliefs run under the Party label.  Many western libertarians run as Republicans.  For example, Wyoming's entire congressional representation has been rated "libertarian" on both social and fiscal issues by the Republican Liberty Caucus.  So, just because other states have fewer elected libertarians does not necessarily mean that they lack fewer liberty-minded politicians in office.  Also, I'd remind you that Vermont and Maine directly follow New Hampshire in high numbers of elected libertarians, and yet, they are both considerably more statist than other FSP candidates.

Thus, for a couple of very good reasons, a state's number of elected libertarians, density of libertarians, etc., does not necessarily reflect its suitability for this project.  That is unless you can demonstrate some substantial advantage in the current political climate.  As for New Hampshire though, even with its higher numbers of elected libertarians, the hurdle to gaining a legislative majority is still sky-high.

Quote
#44) There is a large contingency of liberty-minded Republicans in the New Hampshire legislative and executive branches. These individuals consistently vote to reduce spending, cut programs, lower taxes, and repeal intrusive laws. These individuals have even indicated that they WANT a Libertarian caucus at the State House so they can push their agenda through.

I find it interesting that New Hampshire proponents often talk of establishing a libertarian caucus in the state legislature.  Even you guys seem to understand and indirectly admit that it will be very difficult for us to create a majority in New Hampshire, and I would maintain that the degree to which we must rely on others to pass our agenda is the degree to which those others will control us.  Are you willing to subject our success to the GOP's approval?

I'd prefer to focus on a state where we can establish a legislative majority more outright, thus making us less reliant upon others for our success.  Why go for a caucus when we could realistically go for a majority?

Quote
#45) New Hampshire has grassroots freedom-oriented groups springing up statewide. New Hampshire even has a visible presence of active anarchists in the state.

Other states have these groups as welll.  Alaska has an active LP as well as the AIP (Alaskan Independence Party) - with nearly 20,000 registered members.  Wyoming's LP enjoys Major Party Status, and lacks competition from the Greens, who have not been able to achieve ballot access there.

Quote
#46 through # 51) New Hampshirites HATE TAXES, etc, etc....

New Hampshire does tax interest and dividend income as well as business income and is the #1 most dependent state in the nation when it comes to property taxes, which are very high there.  Property tax rates may come down somewhat, depending on what happens with this budget fiasco, but that remains to be seen.  Alaska has the lowest tax burden of all 10 FSP candidate states, and Wyoming lacks both individual and business income taxes.  Also, unlike New Hampshire, and even Alaska, the issue of raising taxes has not come up in any serious manner in Wyoming recently.  In fact, they're talking about lowering their current 4% sales tax.  New Hampshire's budget troubles will bring this issue back again soon, even Craig Benson understands that:

"Some insiders and politicians would rather raise taxes than make tough decisions and control spending," the governor wrote. "And if we don't control spending now, we re putting New Hampshire on a collision course with an income tax years down the road."

 - From the Concord Monitor (http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/060403govbudgetrxn_2003.shtml)

Quote
#52) New Hampshire offers the lowest dependence on federal dollars among the ten candidate states and is the fourth lowest in the nation!

States that receive more from the central government than they pay in taxes are less likely to seek fiscal autonomy or sovereignty.

How about states that can't balance their budget without $80 million in federal funds?  :-)  New Hampshire's Senate finance committee chair has said that without those funds, "We'd be talking about which taxes to raise."

Quote
#53) New Hampshire is SECOND ONLY TO VERMONT for offering the least restrictive gun laws among the ten candidate states. Open carry (no permit necessary) is allowed in all but courtrooms and CCW permits are provided on a "shall issue" basis - no fingerprints, photos, or special training required as in other states. Obtaining a non-resident CCW permit in New Hampshire is easy.

New Hampshire appears to have less of a gun culture than other states though.  It has an estimated 36% gun ownership rate (compared to 88% for Wyoming), and had only 17 gun shows statewide in 2000 (compared to 50 for Wyoming).  Both states are good on gun freedom, but those to whom firearms are a primary consideration may want to look at a state's gun culture as well.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 30, 2003, 12:12:19 am
Quote
#54) New Hampshire is the ONLY state among the ten candidates and one of only four states NATIONWIDE that believes in the saying: "Let those that ride decide." NEW HAMPSHIRE PLACES NO HELMET RESTRICTIONS ON MOTORCYCLISTS.

All of our candidate states with the exception of Vermont allow motorcyclists over age 18 to decide whether they will wear helmets or not.

Quote
#62) New Hampshire has a large, politically active, and rapidly growing homeschooling population. In 1987 there was believed to be approximately 346 homeschooled children in NH. By 2001, that figure had grown exponentially to over 3,600 (as reported to the Dept. of Ed.).

New Hampshire regulates homeschooling to an extent that other candidate states do not.  According to the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, New Hampshire ranks as a "moderate regulation" state, requiring that parents notify the state that they are homeschooling and also requiring that they meet certain subject and recordkeeping guidelines.  States like Alaska and Idaho do not require any of these, including state notification, and states like Wyoming and Montana rate as "low regulation" states by HLDA standards (by comparison to NH).

Quote
#73) New Hampshire is second only to Alaska for offering the lowest poverty rates. Besides the obvious economic advantage of this measure, it also indicates a lower percentage of possible opponents based on reliance on public assistance.

The poverty rankings you quote come from the Census Bureau's compilations and take only a certain set number of factors into consideration.  They do not necessarily demonstrate a state's economic condition, thus the way that states rank on the list does necessarily mean lack economic opportunity.  For instance, California, which has the 7th largest economy in the world, comes in only slightly higher than Montana on that same list.  

Quote
#74) New Hampshire is second only to ID for the number of new jobs forecast, 2000-2010.

Again, states that do not require as many activists to achieve the equivalent of 20,000 will not need as many job openings.  It's New Hampshire that absolutely must have the jobs but it absolutely must attract the 20,000.

Quote
#81) New Hampshire offers a coastal border for access to ports and harbors to facilitate trade in markets outside the U.S.

The only other candidate states to share this advantage are Maine, Delaware, and Alaska.

#82 New Hampshire offers a border with Canada for facilitating international trade.

A number of arguments have been made as to why borders and coastlines are not significant factors for this project.  In fact, they may even be negative factors:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=959 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=959)
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=210 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=210)
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=911 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=911)
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1366 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1366)
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=111 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=111)

Quote
#83) New Hampshire offers the opportunity to expand into two neighboring states that are current FSP candidates - Vermont and Maine.  

While the advantage of this may not be immediately important, the ultimate goal of the FSP is to act as an example of the benefits of liberty so that the freedoms we will enjoy will spread to other states and the world. By choosing New Hampshire we ensure that our two closest neighbors are states that have been serious contenders during the selection of the Free State and that would have better than average odds to become free themselves.

Again, what reason do we have to believe that Maine and Vermont will follow New Hampshire's example in the future when they are not doing so now?  New Hampshire is much more free and prosperous than either of them right now, and yet, Maine and Vermont are growing even more statist.  Our prospects for expansion seem greater in the West where the states are more liberty-friendly in general.

Quote
#86) New Hampshire's relatively small geographic size will facilitate activism statewide and make frequent collaboration and meetings between FSP members easier. This vital level of activism and collaboration would be impossible in many of the larger states.

This is essentially a duplicate of  #21

Quote
#87) A significantly smaller percentage of New Hampshire's territory is owned by the federal government than many of the leading western states.

That said, these states still offer more private land than several New Hampshires put together.

Quote
Smaller percentages of federally owned land mean greater control over the state's territory by citizens. It is likely that states with less federally owned land will experience less resistance and interference from the federal government as we seek an end to federal mandates.

This may also be a means of galvanizing support against federal interference.  States like Wyoming have active movements against federal land ownership.  The WYGOP sports a platform plank specifically related to the return of all federal land to the state, and Montana recently threw up its hands and outlawed the sale of land to the federal government.

Quote
#88) With the majority of the nation's population east of the Mississippi, New Hampshire offers a large population from nearby states to draw freedom-lovers from in order to reach and exceed our 20,000 goal.

Again, most of the nation's population is statist, and this could work against us in a number of ways.  And we'd also be likely to draw a number of statists seeking economic opportunity, but lacking in understanding about what it takes to create and sustain prosperity.  It's happened before.

Quote
#89) With its nearness to denser-population states, for a majority of current and future FSP members, a move to New Hampshire will be less disruptive and require less life-altering changes to relocate than many other states under consideration. A move to New Hampshire makes it more likely that we will meet and exceed our goal of attracting 20,000 activists.

Within a certain distance sphere, this would be true.  But given how spread out FSP'ers are in general, it's not a compelling argument for choosing a state.  Can you guarantee that the majority of future FSP'ers will come from areas best served by relocating to New Hampshire?

Quote
#90) New Hampshire is home to the tallest mountain in the Northeast, Mt. Washington, affording 100-mile views of three states and Canada.

Mountain-height is a criteria for choosing a state?  Heck, pick Alaska then.  You get Mount McKinley (or Denali), the tallest mountain in North America.  Montana and Wyoming also have very high, world famous mountains (Grant Tetons, Big Horn, Rockies, etc...)

I'm just kidding here.  I realize that this is a "perk" as opposed to an actual criteria.   ;)

Quote
#91) Unlike some states, New Hampshire offers abundant water resources. The potential for water shortages in NH are much less than in some other candidate states. There are actually serious concerns over a water shortage crisis in some of the western states, combined with some state constitutions that declare all water resources in the states to be state property. This is not a concern in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire is deficient in other self-sufficiency issues though: solar, minerals, gas and oil, etc...  Any one of these could also become a crisis under the right circumstances, thus reducing autonomy.

Quote
#93) New Hampshire is a state with breathtaking beauty and scenery - the ocean, lakes, mountains, forests, rivers, picturesque New England towns, covered bridges, historical homes - New Hampshire has it all.

This is really a matter of personal preference; nearly all of these states offer beautiful vistas (the Dakotas are probably the most bleak).  Alaska and Wyoming attract huge numbers of tourists each year because they offer some spectacular scenery.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 30, 2003, 12:30:39 am
After posting all of the above, I should say that I am not trying to argue that New Hampshire is a bad state.  That's not the point at all.  In fact, there's much that I admire about it.  It's certainly the freest state on the East Coast.

At the same time though, I do not believe that it is best for this project, in spite of some of those advantages.  For this to work, we need an environment that reduces the hurdles we face to the fewest and lowest possible.  New Hampshire simply doesn't do that.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 30, 2003, 12:36:00 am
Quote
Reasons 1-6 that fall under this header of "Historical Precedent" all point to rich and interesting history, but are they really reasons to vote for New Hampshire today, 200 years later?  I don't mean to sound nitpicky here, but what has happened in New Hampshire since that time to indicate that such a spirit of independence still lives there?

I agree that the whole Civil War effort was a high negative point in NH's history.  However, I strongly disagree that not much has happened in the mean time in NH.  Freedom movements are few and far-between in any country on Earth, let alone in one state of one country.

The simple preservation of its independent culture alone is more than almost any other state has been able to accomplish.  And what more is there to accomplish than preventing the spread of socialism into its system after all these years?  Every state has a lot of liberty to gain from us, but NH is greatly ahead of most other state in the Union on this point.

Quote
Our success in creating a free state will largely depend upon our ability to build a majority in the state legislature.  In fact, if you go back and read Jason's analysis of the PQ in Quebec, you'll discover that his ideas for how many activists might be required in order to achieve a free state focused on what it took the PQ to gain a parliamentary majority.

This is a cultural issue.  IMO, no state other than NH has a culture so focused on freedom, responsibility, and hard work.  Representation is simply what gets our foot in the door.  Working through any other state's system will be MORE difficult than NH's due to its greater ability to sustain minority views via a 400-member state House.

Iceland allows minority representation by appointing representatives depending on the percentage of vote that is attained by each party.  It's an interesting idea, but a 400-member House is the next best thing.  Besides, we're not talking about a coup d'etat here.  We're not going to try to move to a state with less representation only so we can focus our secretive, manipulative efforts on less seats in the House.

Quote
we're going to have to find a large number who are willing to work for that level of compensation

We won't have to look very hard.  And what is all this talk about compensation?  You think higher pay is a GOOD thing for representatives?

I'll finish my reply later.  My wife is very sick right now.   :'(
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 30, 2003, 01:57:15 am
Okay, I'm back for a few minutes.

(clipped)

We promote the jobs, economic strength, culture of HARD WORK, and economic possibilities because:

1) We can't move without jobs.  In WY, for example, we would have to take every single available job for ten straight years in order to move.

2) We're trying to "show the world what can be done."  This statement clearly implies the need for many pre-existing possibilities of growth which are far more present in NH than in WY.  I don't see how you can "show the world what can be done" or create an American Hong Kong without an active, independent, hard working culture such as NH's.

3) You can't be an activist when you have to work two minimum-wage jobs, 80 hours per week, just to pay the bills.  What the "jobs reports" of WY and VT don't mention is the fact that most of the "new jobs" being created in WY and VT are minimum-wage jobs!

Quote
Simply lacking a constitutional provision for public schools does not mean that we will necessarily be able to rid ourselves of them.  For that, we'll need a majority of voters on our side.  And if we do have the majority we need in order to abolish public schools, then passing a constitutional amendment to allow for their abolition would not be a problem.

You're getting mixed up between a legislative majority and a Constitutional super-majority.  There is a big difference.  NH's lack of a Constitutional requirement for public schools is a VERY positive aspect of NH over all other states.

(clipped)

Quote
If they are of a mind to secede, they'll change the state's constitution to allow it.

Yeah, right.  Like in Alaska.  The state government just LOVED and embraced the idea of amending the Constitution for this purpose.

(clipped)

Quote
New Hampshire's secession would also separate Maine from the rest of the country, a fact that would undoubtedly raise substantial objections as well.

As she said, Constitutionally legal secession is a bargaining chip, not a tool of actual secession, which is not our goal. (edited)

(clipped)

(clipped)

Quote
This is also a good thing, if the committee is actually taken seriously.  One problem right now is that the governor's fellow GOP'ers in the state legislature do not see eye-to-eye with the governor on what the size and scope of government should be, and they control the budget and, therefore, the size and scope of government.

(clipped) 72% of NH adults favored the Governor's veto of the budget. (edited)

Quote
Check out the following articles from New Hampshire newspapers to see something of the political atmosphere there right now.

Sounds good to me.  From the first article:  "In my opinion, a veto is never a reason to celebrate. A veto means that compromise has failed. It’s unfortunate that Gov. Benson chose grandstanding over give and take."

It sounds like the Governor has principles.  Nothing wrong with that.  Who cares if the legislature doesn't like this aspect of the Governor?  Some of them are accustomed to the give-and-take approach instead of the principled approach.  So what?  Don't you think people will look down on OUR principled approach at first no matter where we go?

(clipped)

(clipped)

Quote
We've had politicians in several states voice support for us, so this is not unique to New Hampshire.

Really?  Like the WY Governor who told us to go to ID?  Or the ID Governor who told us to go to WY?  Sounds like the West doesn't want us.  What took the WY LP so long to endorse the FSP? (edited)

Quote
will these House members be enough to help the FSP obtain reforms even beyond that which the House is not currently willing to grant a GOP governor?

It's just politics as usual.  The budget passes, it is considered and rejected, then it is changed and passed again, then it is rejected or accepted, ad infinitum until it passes.

(clipped)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 30, 2003, 02:54:07 am
(clipped)

Quote
Fusion is something that should be fairly simple to implement in the voting system of any state we choose - it just makes a lot of sense, for one thing, and should be fairly appealing to the population.

The major parties will resist tooth and nail any attempt to create fusion where it does not already exist. (edited)

(clipped)

(clipped)

Quote
It might be a good idea to overhaul both branches every two years, but it does not represent a deal-maker in New Hampshire, or a deal-breaker for any other state.

Getting twice as many chances to get our governor, senators, or representatives elected to the state government are definitely a great advantage over any other state.  This even beats term limits. (edited)

Quote
New Hampshire's voting-age population is nearly one million strong ... once again increasing the hurdle we could face in attempting to either garner support, or fight off opposition.

How many registered independents are there in WY again?  Or ID, or MT?  I would say the advantages of NH's existing libertarian, independent, AND hard-working culture and population far exceed the disadvantages of a higher population over other states which are filled with citizens who do not wish to work hard or change their opinions or voting patterns on any given thing.

The two-party system retains absolute control of almost all states under consideration except for NH and VT. (edited)

(clipped)

(clipped)

(clipped)

Quote
We'd either be in or near the major population centers, and thus close enough to get together pretty much whenever we needed to within our own local clusters.  Our western candidate states are more "urbanized" when it comes to this factor, as the population of our eastern states is more spread out via numerous towns and smaller cities.

"Local clusters"???  In this metaphor, NH is one "local cluster" in comparison to WY or MT.  State-wide AND local organizing is all within reach.

(clipped)

Quote
Town A and Town B may be five miles apart, but if they are truly independent entities, then they might as well be 5,000 miles apart when it comes to voting or running for office: you can't do it in both, so their proximity really doesn't matter all that much.

(clipped)

I campaign in VT and they'll hand you a piece of paper, say "go do a lit drop in this city," I would do it AND return within an hour and a half, and then I would continue to work on other things.  (edited)

It takes less than 2 hours from one side of NH to the other.  It requires the same amount of time to go from one side of WY to the other... that is, if you're going 242 MPH!  My McLaren F1 could go that fast, but not for 2 hours!  :D  This is a tremendous advantage for NH and no argument can refute that. (edited)

(clipped)

(clipped)

(clipped)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 30, 2003, 03:44:07 am
Quote
Small districts do not guarantee success, even with fusion!  The people in those districts still have to be persuaded to vote for you over the other candidates, and support from other porcupines will still be critical.

Fusion has highly-significant advantages.  Small districts also have highly-significant advantages.

(clipped)

Quote
The problem I see with New Hampshire again here is that its small districts are so numerous (due to its higher population) that FSP activists would have to be scattered over many districts to gain a majority in the state House.  But the more scattered we are, the less we will be able to support one another.  So, either we're scattered to try and gain a majority, and are, therefore, numerically weaker throughout these districts, or else we concentrate in only a few districts in order to control local governments there and forego attempting to control the legislature.

(clipped)

We are not going to be "scattered" simply because we will be pushing in more candidates.  We're going to be "scattered" everywhere we go because that's what you have to do in order to win elections.  In WY, I don't see any third-parties in the House.  In NH, I do.  NH provides us the capability to start at ground zero, which is exactly where we are.

(clipped)

NH's more independent and less statist culture makes us many, many times more likely to succeed there than in WY.  Don't get me wrong, WY isn't statist.  It's just more statist than NH is, by most per capita measurements.

Quote
The concentrated population in Wyoming is a good contrast here.

I thought that was a disadvantage.

Quote
The districts are small, yet there are fewer of them, so they will not have such a tendency to scatter us.

I thought more were better.

Think of it this way:  Less "scattering" for us mean less "scattering" for the major parties.  This puts us at a tremendous disadvantage in WY and MT, whereas in NH we can focus on winning more battles (and smaller battles).  We will have to be more focused on specific candidates than the major parties are, but that's easy in NH where the major parties couldn't pick a fight with us without sacrificing their ability to win other seats.  In WY, this does not apply as the major parties only have to focus on winning a few seats. (edited)

Quote
It has been pointed out before that this is on a per capita basis.  As Zxcv said, Wyoming's government is only 45% the size of New Hampshire's.

WY residents spend more on government per capita.  Are more dependent per capita, than NH. (edited)

Quote
New Hampshire has the lowest percentage, of government employees, but it has the highest total number of them.

WY residents are more likely to work for the government.  More likely to become angry when we try to cut their jobs.  And more likely to vote against us when their friends lose their government jobs. (edited)

Quote
Again, the lowest percentage (of NEA/AFT members), yes.

WY residents are more likely to be in a teacher's union.  More likely to oppose any changes we ever try to make to public schools.  More likely to form larger alliances against us. (edited)

I cannot argue with the monopoly bargaining and forced dues, but I am personally unaware of how large of a real advantage this gives to them.  Please explain.  (edited)

Quote
This is true to an extent, but New Hampshire's legislature is not willing to go as far as its governor wants to go, particularly in the Senate.  It appears that many in the governor's own party feel that state government is small enough, and that further reducing it "harms" the people of New Hampshire.  Only another election cycle will tell which side New Hampshire's voters will come down on.  For now, the battle is quite fierce, and I can only wonder how the legislature would receive our libertarian agenda if they are putting up such a fight over a conservative Republican agenda

Benson is principled and the NH government is not accustomed to people who stick to their own principles.  Neither WY nor NH residents will welcome our principled idealism with open arms.  NH elected this man. (edited)

(clipped)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 30, 2003, 04:28:15 am
The simple preservation of its independent culture alone is more than almost any other state has been able to accomplish.  And what more is there to accomplish than preventing the spread of socialism into its system after all these years?  Every state has a lot of liberty to gain from us, but NH is greatly ahead of most other state in the Union on this point.

Maintaining a culture favorable to liberty is certainly not an incidental achievement; however, Michelle was referring to specific historical events that indicated some type of leadership in liberty.  I just asked for some examples of events more recent than the 18th century.   ;)

Quote
Working through any other state's system will be MORE difficult than NH's due to its greater ability to sustain minority views via a 400-member state House.

Iceland allows minority representation by appointing representatives depending on the percentage of vote that is attained by each party.  It's an interesting idea, but a 400-member House is the next best thing.  Besides, we're not talking about a coup d'etat here.  We're not going to try to move to a state with less representation only so we can focus our secretive, manipulative efforts on less seats in the House.

Who said anything about being secretive or manipulative or pulling a coup d'etat?  I don't know where you got any of that from.  My point was that Jason started the FSP with the idea in mind that it would work to achieve a legislative majority in a small population state due to how the PQ had achieved a legislative majority in Quebec's parliament.  I don't believe he would have been simarly impressed had they been able to only form a caucus.

The FSP was started with the idea in mind that we would be trying to recruit activists to build a majority, and I believe that is the goal we should continue to aim for.  Building a caucus will not build a free state.  We're going to have to build the kind of presence that will allow us to dominate the agenda.  

Quote
And what is all this talk about compensation?  You think higher pay is a GOOD thing for representatives?

I think it's a good idea to pay enough so that more ordinary folks can afford to serve in office.  At the same time, I don't believe that people should be getting rich off of public service.  My ideal would be to strike a reasonable balance.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 30, 2003, 04:44:05 am
Quote
This may be changing.  Republicans in the New Hampshire Senate are in support of secret measures

(clipped)

"Members of both political parties often retreat behind closed doors to get the troops in line on a particular issue or to hatch strategies. That’s been going on for years and shouldn’t have. However, the approved amendment would now legally exempt the practice in case anyone challenges it."

Sure, it's a move in the wrong direction, but the practice has already been going on for years and they're only trying to keep it that way.  Therefore, this had no new negative effect whatsoever on government transparency in NH. (edited)

Look at what the White House has done.  Entire government agencies' websites were taken down for MONTHS.  All "non-relevant information" was stripped from them.  Everyone on capitol hill and their dog is shielded from public scrutiny.  DC itself has become a hyper-secretive club for The Dark Side.

Quote
I'm not trying to be mean here, but the nation focuses on New Hampshire only for a brief period every four years, and then promptly forgets about it until the next presidential election year.

(clipped)

Actually, NH's primaries are well-known to be a "representative example" of how the candidates will do in the rest of the country.  National candidates target NH for this very reason. (edited)

As a matter of fact, this phenomenon is so real, studies are regularly done regarding each election's economic impact on NH.

(clipped)

Quote
The mere existence of this primary does not guarantee us an influential voice in it, nor does it guarantee us that any influence we exercised would be admired or emulated by the rest of the country.  This should not be a major consideration in our decision.

I disagree.  It should definitely be a major consideration in our decision, just not a primary consideration.

(clipped)

Quote
The unpopularity of the Claremont decisions does not necessarily mean that New Hampshire voters want to end the government monopoly on their school system

On the contrary.  It has had a significant impact on NH.  It has awoken the sleeping giant, namely the libertarian resistance of NH's culture.  Try to awaken WY's population.  Just try it.

Quote
they just don't like the way it is currently being funded

No, they don't like taxes at all.  Period.  They consistently oppose taxation.

Quote
There is no evidence to suggest that New Hampshire residents favor school privatization to a greater degree than any other state.  State-sponsored public education has a long, engrained history in New England.

When I, and probably most other New Englanders, think about politics in New England, the first words that come to mind are "independence" and "open-mindedness."  (edited)

Quote
Simply putting a label on something does not make it so.  Local elections may be nonpartisan in name, but this does not eliminate the fact that the candidates themselves are still backed by political parties and advocate specific political agendas.

This nonpartisan nature of local elections leaves room for us to grow as a movement, based on specific issues, without the fear of being attacked for being a big-L Libertarian with all of the platform's perceived "downsides."  As our message is more compatible with NH's culture than the Dem or Rep platforms, our message is also much more likely to be accepted by the people. (edited)

Quote
New Hampshire does not hold any special esteem in the eyes of the American people to any degree that I've noticed.

She said that if we establish a beachhead of freedom then NH would serve as the best choice.  She did not say "NH is currently an example to the rest of the world." (edited)

(clipped)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 30, 2003, 05:00:18 am
Quote
If we cannot establish ourselves in one state, then there will be no beachhead at all, no example to point to.

Hence why WY's jobs problem is a near deal-breaker.

Quote
Farm subsidies are a genuine concern, but there is opportunity there as well.

Yeah, like the opportunity for over 150 WY farmers who receive $100,000 to $1,000,000 a year EACH from the Federal government to denounce us to their grave.  :-\

Quote
New Hampshire gets its share of federal money as well though.

WY had 33-TIMES MORE Federal money in farm-aid per capita last year than NH.  (edited)

Quote
Of all our candidate states, Wyoming is the only one with a balanced budget and a large reserve fund - $1.8 billion.  Wyoming has made headlines because of that fact lately.  Wyoming is also the least federally dependent western FSP candidate.

Really?  I have never heard about that "reserve fund" before.  Tell me more.
"Western" is the keyword here.  NH beats WY and all other western states to dust on the Federal dependency issue.

Quote
The bulk of the nation's population is statist and views libertarians as extremists.  By choosing to be a libertarian at all, you choose to run the risk of isolating and stigmatizing yourself.  West or East, it makes very little difference.

Not in NH.  Living in VT, I can tell you that everyone knows very well that NH is a libertarian-friendly state with a strongly libertarian culture.  You must not live around here, so speak for you own side of the country, not mine.

Quote
There is no evidence to suggest that locating in New Hampshire will change the way the majority of the nation's population views libertarians and libertarian ideas.

(clipped)

All evidence suggests that NH is a highly-visible state, especially politically.

(clipped)

(clipped)

Quote
Easterners are arguably more image-conscious, and are, therefore, more likely to be intimidated by media and social pressure.  Westerners are used to being portrayed as "weirdos," and are less likely to be influenced by what the elites think of them.

Howard Dean and Craig Benson would not agree with you on that statement.  You're thinking about NY and DC. (edited)

Quote
Media and political elites care less about what happens in the West in general.  They're not likely to go to the same efforts to demonize us in Montana or Wyoming as they would in one of our eastern candidates, and the populations of Wyoming and Montana would very likely be less receptive to such a characterization.  Again, they're used to such treatment, and they think very little of the media and political elite as it is.

Just because they're used to it doesn't mean it won't happen.  Or that the media will ignore it if it does. (edited)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 30, 2003, 05:18:26 am
Quote
I ask this question particularly in light of the fact that much of the effort to sell New Hampshire to the FSP is directed toward those who are looking to make good money.

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.  Period.  We promote the jobs, economic strength, culture of HARD WORK, and economic possibilities because:

I'm well aware of the reasons New Hampshire advocates use in this area, as I've heard them rather often.   ;)  What I said simply amounted to an observation that you are trying to lure people with the idea of personal economic prosperity and then expecting them to go serve in a legislature that offers them $100 a year.  I just suggest that you not be surprised if you don't find a whole lot of takers.

Quote
Quote
Simply lacking a constitutional provision for public schools does not mean that we will necessarily be able to rid ourselves of them.  For that, we'll need a majority of voters on our side.  And if we do have the majority we need in order to abolish public schools, then passing a constitutional amendment to allow for their abolition would not be a problem.

You're getting mixed up between a legislative majority and a Constitutional super-majority.  There is a big difference.  NH's lack of a Constitutional requirement for public schools is a VERY positive aspect of NH over all other states.

Saying this is NOT an advantage to NH is grasping at straws.

Either I'm mixed up or grasping at straws, which will it be?  Each implies something different.

You are ignoring the point of what I was saying, which is that it does not matter if the constitution does not require the existence of public schools so long as a majority of the people themselves want them.  If that is the case, you will not be able to abolish them.  By the same token, even if there is a constitutional provision for public schools, if a majority of the people want to do away with them, they will.

The matter does not come down to an issue of constitutional provisions, but what a majority of the people of the state are willing to go along with.

Quote
Quote
If they are of a mind to secede, they'll change the state's constitution to allow it.

Yeah, right.  Like in Alaska.  The state government just LOVED and embraced the idea of amending the Constitution for this purpose.  This is yet another réfutation sans logique.

Obviously the people of Alaska are not of a mind to secede, are they?  If they were, then they'd be bringing appropriate pressure on their government to make it possible.  You've refuted nothing because you ignored the argument being offered in favor of one you substituted in its place.

Quote
Quote
New Hampshire's secession would also separate Maine from the rest of the country, a fact that would undoubtedly raise substantial objections as well.

As she said, Constitutionally legal secession is a bargaining chip, not a tool of actual secession, which is well-known to NOT be our goal.

"Constitutionally legal" and "actual" secession?  You're going to have clarify what you mean here because I don't understand what you're getting at.

Quote
Quote
This is good news, but it still leaves us needing around 200 or so more to achieve a majority there...waaay more than we would need elsewhere.

More representation is better, not worse.  Seriously, just think about what you're saying here.  

The point is that we need many more besides this one person in order to build a majority there.  Yes, one is a good place to start with, but can we follow this up with the number needed to control that body?  If not, we'll have to rely on the support of others in order to pass our agenda.

Quote
Quote
I don't see why we should deliberately tackle the more difficult challenge, particularly when so many of us believe that time is not on our side.

"More difficult challenge"???  How is a greater chance of being elected a "more difficult challenge" for us?  This just doesn't make any sense.  How many libertarians have been elected in NH again?  And how many libertarians per capita already exist in NH?

You keep changing the subject.  I'm talking about the ability to build the majority we would need to control the New Hampshire House because of so many district seats we would have to win.  How many libertarians in the legislature again?

Quote
WY, for example, is uncharted territory when it comes to libertarianism.  Also, the greater per-capita size of WY's government means it is also more statist than NH.  And don't give me any more of those Bush/Gore election statistics.  Voting for Bush is a TREMENDOUS NEGATIVE in my book.

Wyoming is not uncharted territory when it comes to libertarianism.  The WYLP is major party.  Wyoming's government is larger per capita, but there is evidence to show that it is better managed and more responsible.  For example, it has no budget deficit and will not have one anytime soon.  New Hampshire cannot say the same.

And according to that poll I posted, Bush seems to be fairly popular in New Hampshire right now, so if that's a tremendous negative for you, you may want to consider it.

Quote
Quote
This is also a good thing, if the committee is actually taken seriously.  One problem right now is that the governor's fellow GOP'ers in the state legislature do not see eye-to-eye with the governor on what the size and scope of government should be, and they control the budget and, therefore, the size and scope of government.

Is the committee taken seriously.  There you go again with the grasping at straws.  If you can't attack the argument directly, you might as well indirectly try to attack its credibility.  72% of NH adults FAVORED the Governor's veto of the budget.

The existence of this committee is being touted as an advantage.  It is now incumbent upon you to demonstrate that it is, in fact, able to achieve something in New Hampshire politics.  I ask you again, is a legislature that has put the brakes on a GOP governor's budget likely to find a libertarian-backed proposal for streamling government attractive?  Is that such an unreasonable question?

I'm not attacking the credibility of anything or anyone.  I'm asking you to show why we should believe that this body will have an impact, or to demonstrate that it IS having an impact.  
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 30, 2003, 05:56:04 am
Quote
How much will Benson be able to help the FSP implement its agenda from that position of weakness, particularly since his own party has applied the brakes to his agenda in the state legislature?

Are you talking about the budget again?   ::)

No, I was talking about California, Governor-for-life and recall votes.   ;D  ::)

Quote
Quote
Fusion is something that should be fairly simple to implement in the voting system of any state we choose - it just makes a lot of sense, for one thing, and should be fairly appealing to the population.

Cute argument.  The major parties will resist tooth and nail any attempt to create fusion where it does not already exist.  You seem to believe it's some sort of light switch that one citizen can just flip on and off at will.  It's not.

The major parties can resist what they like, and I'm sure that they will.  The point was that fusion is an idea that makes sense, and will have appeal to any state population that is interested in more freedom of choice.

Quote
Quote
In states with smaller legislatures (and small districts), the hurdle to legislative control is going to be much lower than in New Hampshire, even with the advantage of fusion.  States like Wyoming have small districts, a small legislature, and the added advantage of term limits, all of which will combine to give us a very promising shot at legislative dominance in a reasonable amount of time.

There you go again with the "more representation is worse" non-argument.  See my previous replies to this.

I did not say that more representation is a bad thing.  I said that we need to be able to build a legislative majority and so having so many districts to win will make that harder.

Quote
Quote
Running on a fused ticket does not necessarily guarantee you success, and I would wager that those who did win on "fused" tickets won due to some other factors as well.

You first try to attack the need for a pre-existing system of fusion in our target state, THEN you try to attack the advantages of fusion.  Do you even support fusion at all?  Or do you just really, really hate NH?  I vouch for the latter.

I said that fusion was not absolutely essential to our success except in New Hampshire because we'd need every advantage we could get there while trying to win all of those district races.  Fusion would be an added advantage elsewhere, yes, but I don't know that it would be critical to us.  It would depend upon which state we're talking about.

Yes, I do support fusion.  No, I do not hate New Hampshire, nor do I really, really hate New Hampshire.

Quote
Quote
It might be a good idea to overhaul both branches every two years, but it does not represent a deal-maker in New Hampshire, or a deal-breaker for any other state.

Getting twice as many chances to get our governor, senators, or representatives elected to the state government are definitely a great advantage over any other state.  This even beats term limits to a pulp.

Not if it means that the same people get to run with name recognition and party backing and money year after year.

Quote
Quote
New Hampshire's voting-age population is nearly one million strong ... once again increasing the hurdle we could face in attempting to either garner support, or fight off opposition.

How many registered independents are there in WY again?  Or ID, or MT?  I would say the advantages of NH's existing libertarian, independent, AND hard-working culture and population far exceed the disadvantages of a higher population over other states which are filled with citizens who do not wish to work hard or change their opinions or voting patterns on any given thing.

The two-party system retains absolute control of almost all states under consideration except for NH and VT.  Think about it.

New Hampshire's state government is entirely controlled by Republicans, and by a very large margin at that.  Right now it is absolutely under GOP control.  And where do you get the idea that other state populations are not as hard-working and independent as New Hampshire?  As for the libertarian part, I'm sorry but I don't see any state's population as being libertarian.

Quote
Quote
To succeed in New Hampshire, we'll have to win over a much larger electorate than we would have to win in other states, which could be a significant problem for us if New Hampshire voters are not impressed with us.

There you go AGAIN with the same old "more representation is worse" non-argument.  See my previous replies to this.

There you go AGAIN substituting my argument with one of your own.  

Quote
Quote
New Hampshire's small size and accessibility will also be an advantage for groups that might want to campaign against us.

Grasping at straws.  This is a ludicrous argument which tries to minimize the positive organizational advantage of NH by using a statement which will evoke the emotion of fear in the reader.  Where else have I seen this debate method used before?

If the argument is that ludicrous, then it should be simple to refute with something other an innuendo and transference.  I suppose that we would be able to do in New Hampshire no one else could do, eh?  This small size issue would only be an advantage for us and no one else?

Quote
Quote
As someone has said, all politics "is local."  Most campaigning that goes on, whether for county, state-wide, and even national office, occurs at the local level

Of course.  So let's just move the WY and rarely ever meet on the state-wide level.  Who cares about winning elections anyways?

This is really getting ridiculous.  I was hoping for a positive, constructive exchange here, but you're completely ignoring what I say and in favor of jumping to unwarranted conclusions.  Most politics IS local and most campaigning that goes on in even statewide elections IS done locally.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 30, 2003, 06:01:44 am
Quote
Given the above numbers, it is actually New Hampshire (along with Maine and Idaho) that must live up to higher expections when it comes to job availability, not the lower population states.  We could quite likely succeed in Wyoming or Alaska with much fewer than 20,000 activists, thus we would not necessarily need New Hampshire's job market for success.  And if we get 20,000 or more in those states, then as Zxcv is fond of saying, that would be "an embarassment of riches."

Actually, those numbers convince me that we can in fact succeed in NH!  Thanks!

WY, however, has what... 36,000 projected jobs for the next ten years?  (Most of those are minimum wage as well, so you will need two EACH.)  Couple that with the fact that 20,000 activists translates to who knows how many people (35,000?).

Thus, we would have to take every single available job in WY for ten years straight.

(clipped)

Quote
For example, Wyoming's entire congressional representation has been rated "libertarian" on both social and fiscal issues by the Republican Liberty Caucus.

That's awesome!  I wonder how NH ranks.

Quote
Also, I'd remind you that Vermont and Maine directly follow New Hampshire in high numbers of elected libertarians, and yet, they are both considerably more statist than other FSP candidates.

Thus, for a couple of very good reasons, a state's number of elected libertarians, density of libertarians, etc., does not necessarily reflect its suitability for this project.  That is unless you can demonstrate some substantial advantage in the current political climate.

Nearby states with high numbers of elected libertarians prove that a movement in NH could spread to those states.  It even proves not only that more libertarians exist in this region, but also that they are not afraid to be known as libertarians.

I dont know about ME, but VT is only near-Communist because of the migration effect of the gay marriage ruling (a ruling which I agree with).  This cannot be ignored when talking about VT. (edited)

(clipped)

Quote
I would maintain that the degree to which we must rely on others to pass our agenda is the degree to which those others will control us.  Are you willing to subject our success to the GOP's approval?

Isn't that what a "libertarian Republican" does?  ;)  (edited)

Quote
I'd prefer to focus on a state where we can establish a legislative majority more outright, thus making us less reliant upon others for our success.  Why go for a caucus when we could realistically go for a majority?

Yeah!  1 seat is easier to win than 10!  Right?
Wrong.  If we can focus our resources more, so can the Dems and Reps.  Think about it.

Quote
Other states have these groups as welll.  Alaska has an active LP as well as the AIP (Alaskan Independence Party) - with nearly 20,000 registered members.

Yeah I like AK too.  But I'm not moving there.  Sorry.

(clipped)

Quote
New Hampshire does tax interest and dividend income as well as business income and is the #1 most dependent state in the nation when it comes to property taxes, which are very high there.

That was all done by one judge.  It was not supported by the people of NH.  The fact that the judge has not been impeached baffles all of NH, and even baffles me to tell the truth.

Quote
Also, unlike New Hampshire, and even Alaska, the issue of raising taxes has not come up in any serious manner in Wyoming recently.  In fact, they're talking about lowering their current 4% sales tax.

WY's recipe for tax cuts: (edited)
1) Start with a few million cups of Federal Subsidies. (tax all Americans)
2) Add a few BILLION cups of Trade Protectionism. (tax other countries)
3) Add a dash of Federal highway money. (tax all Americans)
4) Bake in the oven at 425 degrees for 10 years and VOILA!  A tax cut!  ::)

Quote
How about states that can't balance their budget without $80 million in federal funds?  :-)  New Hampshire's Senate finance committee chair has said that without those funds, "We'd be talking about which taxes to raise."

(clipped)

NH offers the LOWEST dependence on Federal dollars among ALL candidate states.  This is regardless of the $80M in Federal dollars it received for balancing its budget.  WY just gets a lot more Federal money than you think.  The $80M is nothing more than a highly-visible kickback from a state that asks less from the Fed than EVERY other FSP candidate state.

Quote
New Hampshire appears to have less of a gun culture than other states though.  It has an estimated 36% gun ownership rate (compared to 88% for Wyoming), and had only 17 gun shows statewide in 2000 (compared to 50 for Wyoming).  Both states are good on gun freedom, but those to whom firearms are a primary consideration may want to look at a state's gun culture as well.

Perhaps that is something to think about.  This could be an advantage for WY.  However, look at VT's concealed carry and it's flaming socialist culture.  I'm living it and it's real!  Gun freedoms here aren't leaving anytime soon!
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 30, 2003, 06:17:10 am
Quote
Quote
We'd either be in or near the major population centers, and thus close enough to get together pretty much whenever we needed to within our own local clusters.  Our western candidate states are more "urbanized" when it comes to this factor, as the population of our eastern states is more spread out via numerous towns and smaller cities.

"Local clusters"???  In this metaphor, NH is one "local cluster" in comparison to WY or MT.  State-wide AND local organizing is all within reach.

Western state populations are more concentrated around specific cities.  Thus, statewide AND local organizing is also within reach there (to one extent or another).  Alaska is an extreme example of this: over 40% of the population lives in one metro area.  Control that area, and you pretty much control state politics, but you also control politics in the largest city in the state, thus exercising influence over the largest number of people.

Quote
Oh, so urbanization was bad, but it's now good.  Okay, I have to admit:  I am officially confused.  So does your argument nullify urbanization then?  Or is that only for NH?  And then when we finally move to NH, THEN will it be an advantage when you only have to drive two hours from the Eastern border of the state to the Western border?  HOW is this NOT an advantage?

I believe a mid-level degree of urbanization is best.  Vermont and Alaska are the extremes, Vermont having the most widely scattered population, and Alaska having the most concentrated.  Having more people clustered closer together can be advantage for reaching more folks more easily; however, as the size of the cluster grows, so does the infrastructure and, usually, the degree of statism and opposition.  I consider Wyoming to be a good compromise there because its population is clustered around a few small cities.  What makes the difference for me, primarily, is the size of the city.

As far as driving from one side of New Hampshire to the other, why would you really need to do that?  You'd work in your local elections close to home, of course, and even most statewide campaigns.  The only people who would really need to travel extensively would be those running for statewide offices or Senate districts.

Quote
Quote
Town A and Town B may be five miles apart, but if they are truly independent entities, then they might as well be 5,000 miles apart when it comes to voting or running for office: you can't do it in both, so their proximity really doesn't matter all that much.

That is absolutely ridiculous.  You speak as though we are deficient activists if we cannot create a "Truly Independent Entity"TM for political campaigns in each city.  I campaign in VT and they'll hand you a piece of paper, say "go do a lit drop in this city," I would do it AND return within an hour and a half, and then I would continue to work on other things.

It takes less than 2 hours from one side of NH to the other.  It requires the same amount of time to go from one side of WY to the other... that is, if you're going 242 MPH.  My McLaren F1 could go that fast, but not for 2 hours!  :D  This is a tremendous advantage for NH and there is absolutely no argument you can possibly make to refute that.

Activism takes many forms, but ultimately, we're going to be more effective closer to home.  My main point there was that we can better support one another when more of us are located in the same electoral districts.  I see no need to travel back and forth across a state when the most effective activism takes place in one's own community.

Quote
Quote
Far from being a disadvantage, I believe this is another area where Wyoming really shines.  With most of the population and economic opportunity in the Casper and Cheyenne areas, we can anticipate that most of our membership will also end up in these areas.  That means that more of us will be clustered together so as to support one another to the highest degree in both local and state politics.

Sure.  And Teton County doesn't exist!  And the rest of WY is entirely unpopulated!   ::)

The rest of Wyoming is very sparsely populated.  The vast majority of its population lives in several small clusters, the largest of which are Cheyenne and Casper.

Quote
Quote
Because these states are so large, the potential exists for us to create new states out of a few of their present counties should we run into insurmountable resistance in our efforts to build majorities in the existing state governments.  Should this option come into play, the western states provide plenty of counties large enough to give us room for growth and access to resources for greater self-sufficiency.

Oh yes, let's take over WY, try to split it up, and see how much the population LOVES us then.  I'm willing to bet they would kill ALL of us before they would allow that to happen.  Why don't we just secede from the Union, declare war on America, and apply for foreign aide while we're at it?

Why don't you just go lie down and come back to this when you're feeling more rational?   ::)

Quote
Small districts do not guarantee success, even with fusion!  The people in those districts still have to be persuaded to vote for you over the other candidates, and support from other porcupines will still be critical.

Fusion has highly-significant advantages.  Small districts also have highly-significant advantages.  Stop trying to minimize them as advantages in the name of defacing any and every advantage NH holds over every other state.

I never said they didn't have advantages.  All I said is that they do not guarantee success.  Michelle said otherwise.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 30, 2003, 06:44:13 am
Quote
Quote
The problem I see with New Hampshire again here is that its small districts are so numerous (due to its higher population) that FSP activists would have to be scattered over many districts to gain a majority in the state House.  But the more scattered we are, the less we will be able to support one another.  So, either we're scattered to try and gain a majority, and are, therefore, numerically weaker throughout these districts, or else we concentrate in only a few districts in order to control local governments there and forego attempting to control the legislature.

We aren't going to pull an LP or anything and try to run as many losing candidates as we possibly can.  We CAN win in NH.  We CAN'T in WY.  The major parties are seated in all areas of the WY government with their boots on the necks of the population who continues to vote for them.

NH's more independent and less statist culture makes us many, many times more likely to succeed there than in WY.  Don't get me wrong, WY isn't statist.  It's just more statist than NH is, by most per capita measurements.

New Hampshire's government is thoroughly dominated by the GOP, as is Wyoming's.  If that's a problem for one of these states, then it's a problem for the other.

Quote
Quote
The concentrated population in Wyoming is a good contrast here.

I thought that was a disadvantage.

Beyond a certain size, yes, I think so.  I don't think Wyoming has gotten to that point yet though.  But that's my personal opinion.

Quote
Quote
The districts are small, yet there are fewer of them, so they will not have such a tendency to scatter us.

I thought more were better.

Depending on how difficult that makes it to control the legislature.

Quote
Think of it this way:  Less "scattering" for us mean less "scattering" for the major parties.  Sorry to tell you, but this puts us at a tremendous disadvantage in WY and MT, whereas in NH you can focus on winning more battles (and smaller battles).  We will have to be more focused on specific candidates than the major parties are, but that's easy in NH where the major parties couldn't pick a fight with us without sacrificing their ability to win other seats.  In WY, this does not apply as the major parties only have to focus on beating us to a pulp on a few seats.

The major parties might yield some seats to you in New Hampshire, but they can do that and still retain control, thus making anything you try to do dependent upon them.

Also, consider the fact that many of us would probably run as Republicans in most of our candidate states.  Why work against them when we can work within them?  The party label doesn't matter so much as how the person wearing it votes.  

Quote
Quote
It has been pointed out before that this is on a per capita basis.  As Zxcv said, Wyoming's government is only 45% the size of New Hampshire's.

Well at least you admit it.  WY residents are more statist per capita.  Spend more on government per capita.  Are more dependent, and less hard-working, per capita, than NH.

Wyoming is not a dependent culture.  It has the second fewest number of people on welfare in the country (after Idaho).   And, once again, I have to ask where you get the idea that people in New Hampshire are more hard-working?

Quote
Quote
New Hampshire has the lowest percentage, of government employees, but it has the highest total number of them.

Well at least you admit it.  WY residents are more likely to work for the government.  More likely to get pissed off when we try to cut their jobs.  And more likely to vote against us when their friends lose their government jobs.

Per capita differences aside, there aren't that many of them.  Overall, we'd tick off fewer people doing this in Wyoming than in New Hampshire.   ;)

Quote
Quote
Again, the lowest percentage (of NEA/AFT members), yes.

Well at least you admit it.  WY residents are more likely to be in a teacher's union.  More likely to oppose any changes we ever try to make to public schools.  More likely to form larger alliances against us.

You consider 5,000 to be larger than 20,000?

Quote
I cannot argue with the monopoly bargaining and forced dues, but I am personally unaware of how large of a real advantage this gives to them.  Why don't you explain it to me?

This site explains them in detail:

http://www.nilrr.org/MonsterMonopoly.htm (http://www.nilrr.org/MonsterMonopoly.htm)

Quote
Quote
This is true to an extent, but New Hampshire's legislature is not willing to go as far as its governor wants to go, particularly in the Senate...

There you go on and on about the budget again.  I repeat, Benson is principled and the NH government is not accustomed to people who stick to their own principles.  What do you think... that WY residents will welcome our principled idealism with open arms?  Or that, since NH does not yet fully do so, that we should just give up without a fight?  NH got this man elected.  I see little evidence of ANYONE in the government of WY with strict libertarian principles of their own, let alone the governor.

The Republican Liberty Caucus has rated Wyoming's entire congressional representation as being "libertarian" in both social and fiscal issues.  The WYLP is a major party in Wyoming, and even the WYGOP has libertarian leaning ideals, such as death-with-dignity, which is actually a part of their platform.  Look up some of the other Wyoming threads here for more information.

Quote
This may be changing.  Republicans in the New Hampshire Senate are in support of secret measures
Sure, it's a move in the wrong direction, but the practice has already been going on for years and they're only trying to keep it that way.  Therefore, this had no negative effect whatsoever on government transparency in NH.

Since it's been going on behind closed doors, how do you know what effect it's had?

Quote
Look at what the White House has done.  Entire government agencies' websites were taken down for MONTHS.  All "non-relevant information" was stripped from them.  Everyone on capitol hill and their dog is shielded from public scrutiny.  DC itself has become a hyper-secretive club for The Dark Side.

WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!   ;D ;D ;D ;)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 30, 2003, 07:04:32 am
Quote
Quote
I'm not trying to be mean here, but the nation focuses on New Hampshire only for a brief period every four years, and then promptly forgets about it until the next presidential election year.

You've been paying attention again, I see.  Actually, NH's primaries are well-known to be a "representative example" of how the candidates will do in the rest of the country.  National candidates target the hell out of NH for this very reason.

As a matter of fact, this phenomenon is so real, studies are regularly done regarding each election's economic impact on NH.  Please, stop trying to use the "minimizing strategy" as a debate tool unless you know specifically what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, and you've once again evaded the argument.  Yes, there is a great deal of bluster made about the New Hampshire primary, but, yes, the country forgets about New Hampshire once that is over.  Those of us living out here in the rest of the country don't hear about New Hampshire very much outside of that one time every four years.

Quote
Quote
The mere existence of this primary does not guarantee us an influential voice in it, nor does it guarantee us that any influence we exercised would be admired or emulated by the rest of the country.  This should not be a major consideration in our decision.

I disagree.  It should definitely be a major consideration in our decision, just not a primary consideration.

Why?

Quote
Quote
The measures you outline could be implemented in any state.

Could be?  There you go again with the whole one-citizen-with-a-light-switch theory on election reform.   ::)

Your theory, not mine.  If you think this is unreasonable, explain why.

Quote
Quote
The unpopularity of the Claremont decisions does not necessarily mean that New Hampshire voters want to end the government monopoly on their school system

On the contrary.  It has had a significant impact on NH.  It has awoken the sleeping giant, namely the libertarian resistance of NH's culture.  Try to awaken WY's population.  Just try it.

I read New Hampshire's papers quite frequently, and I don't see any noise being made about anything to do with schools other than about funding them.  What evidence do you have that they are ready to dispense with the public school system altogether?

And what makes you think that Wyoming's population couldn't be woken up, or that they're not awake already?  They have their own pet issues out there, you know.  Federal land ownership is one of them, planning and zoning is another.   New Hampshire is not the only place where people get upset about things.

Quote
Quote
There is no evidence to suggest that New Hampshire residents favor school privatization to a greater degree than any other state.  State-sponsored public education has a long, engrained history in New England.

Really?  Because when I, and probably most other New Englanders, think about politics in New England, the first words that come to mind are "independence" and "open-mindedness."  Not "state-sponsored public education."

What does independence and open-mindedness have to do with the fact that state-sponsored public education is alive and well in New England?  In fact, New England was the seatbed of public education in this country, going all the way back to the 'Ole Deluder Satan Act.

Quote
Quote
Simply putting a label on something does not make it so.  Local elections may be nonpartisan in name, but this does not eliminate the fact that the candidates themselves are still backed by political parties and advocate specific political agendas.

Oh yes.  Stripping Democrats of their affiliation definitely makes people more likely to elect big-government liberals to office.   ::)  Actually, this nonpartisan nature of local elections leaves room for us to grow as a movement, based on specific issues, without the fear of being bitch-slapped for being a big-L Libertarian with all of the platform's perceived "downsides."  As our message is more compatible with NH's culture than the Dem or Rep platforms, our message is also much more likely to be accepted by the people.

Well then, good.  The point is that if you really ARE a Democrat or a big-L liberarian, then you're still going to campaign as one whether you wear the actual label or not.  Does the label change your message?  Your supporters?

Quote
Quote
New Hampshire does not hold any special esteem in the eyes of the American people to any degree that I've noticed.

What part of her "If ... Then" statement did you fail to read when you wrote this highly-uninformed, irrelevant sentence?  She said that IF we establish a beachhead of freedom THEN NH would serve as the best choice.  She did not say "NH is currently an example to the rest of the world."

The idea that establishing a beachhead in New Hampshire would be best in order to spread freedom to the rest of the world implies that New Hampshire somehow enjoys some special status that makes it especially conducive for such a project, does it not?  Hence my statement.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 30, 2003, 07:09:13 am
Quote
Quote
It should also be noted that New Hampshire is located within close proximity to major Leftist media and political centers on the East Coast.  These groups could exercise influence on us in New Hampshire to a degree that they could not equal in the more distant western states where national opinion has historically meant less to the people overall.

Oh my GOD!  Really?  *afraid*  Ignorance is not strength.  Fear is not logic.  Instilling fear of "leftist media and political centers" in FSP members is not a form of logical debate.

If I tell you that a certain dog has a history of attacking people, you can still strut on by in front of him saying "fear is not logic," if you like, but I wouldn't recommend it.  You might just be saying it all the way to the emergency room.   ;D ;)

The fact is that the media in this country is, much more often than not, the enemy of liberty, and what attention they focus on us is likely to reflect that.  If you have evidence to the contrary, I invite you to share it.

Quote
Or I could say "The freedom-hating leftist celebrities are invading Wyoming and Montana by the thousands each year!  Data suggests that second home sales have skyrocketed by as much as 300% in certain WY counties in the last year alone!  The Leftist celebrities are coming!  My wife saw Madonna in WY once!  RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!"

Both statements would be TRUE.  But just like yours, neither statement would be worth posting to a logical, intelligent FSP public.  Please respect our intelligence.  Don't drink and post.

Actually, I do find the migration of anti-liberty groups to be of concern, and I've expressed as much in this forum in regard to Montana.  That's another factor we have to weigh in our decision.  But I consider the national media and political elite to be an even larger threat, particularly where they have the ability to alarm and energize a sympathetic population.  

I see that you're having a great time poking fun at that statement, but you have yet to refute it with anything substantive.  If you can, please do so.  Otherwise, please take the comedy act to Vegas

Quote
If we cannot establish ourselves in one state, then there will be no beachhead at all, no example to point to.

Hence why WY's jobs problem is a near deal-breaker.

Not when it doesn't need as many activists to start with.

Quote
Quote
Farm subsidies are a genuine concern, but there is opportunity there as well.

Yeah, like the opportunity for over 150 Joe Blow WY farmers who receive $100,000 to $1,000,000 a year EACH from the Federal government to piss on every FSP member they see and to denounce us to their grave.  :-\

That would be a rather dramatic scene.  We could compensate the farmers for their federal dollars by selling pay-per-view for this.   ;D ;)

Quote
Quote
New Hampshire gets its share of federal money as well though.

Yeah, right.  WY had what... 33-TIMES MORE Federal money in farm-aid per capita last year than NH?   ::)

I notice you sidestepped the issue of New Hampshire's inability to balance its budget without that federal money.  I suppose that's trivial?

Quote
Quote
Of all our candidate states, Wyoming is the only one with a balanced budget and a large reserve fund - $1.8 billion.  Wyoming has made headlines because of that fact lately.  Wyoming is also the least federally dependent western FSP candidate.

Really?  I have never heard about that "reserve fund" before.  Tell me more.
"Western" is the keyword here.  NH beats WY and all other western states to dust on the Federal dependency issue.

In 1975, Wyoming started a fund based on taxes it collected from the sale of minerals mined from within the state.  The fund has grown to $1.8 billion and is occasionally used to fund various projects where other states would have to raise taxes.

Quote
Quote
The bulk of the nation's population is statist and views libertarians as extremists.  By choosing to be a libertarian at all, you choose to run the risk of isolating and stigmatizing yourself.  West or East, it makes very little difference.

Not in NH.  Living in VT, I can tell you that everyone knows very well that NH is a libertarian-friendly state with a strongly libertarian culture.  You must not live around here, so speak for you own side of the country, not mine.

I'm sure they do know all about what New Hampshire is like.  But I still have to wonder then, why are they not following its example?

Quote
Quote
There is no evidence to suggest that locating in New Hampshire will change the way the majority of the nation's population views libertarians and libertarian ideas.

That is a flat out lie.  All evidence suggests that NH is a highly-visible state, especially politically.

Disagreeing with your perception of New Hampshire's importance does not make me a liar.  I'm sorry but I just don't hear anything about New Hampshire outside of presidential election years, and I see no evidence whatsoever that the rest of the country is somehow manipulated by what goes on there even then.  If you have facts to the contrary, please present them.

Quote
Quote
How will the "bulk of the nation's population" likely react when Leftist media elites and politicians try telling them that they have a "bunch of gun, dope and prostitution fanatics" "endangering" and "corrupting" their children?

Fear-mongering again.

Call it that if you like, but that's exactly what the Left does to its opposition: it demonizes them in every way it can.  If you don't know that, then you don't know your enemy.  Look at what opposition groups in New Hampshire are saying about Benson: he doesn't care about the elderly, he doesn't care about education, etc...  I saw one editorial calling him "Governor Scrooge."

That is the reality of how the Left works.

Quote
Quote
They'll paint us as an eastern extremist movement; a change of venue, not perspective.  They'll still look at us as lunatics, and some who might otherwise side with us will not do so just to save their hard-earned reputations from the political and media onslaught.

As opposed to a fanatical western extremist movement?  Give me a break.  Your arguments are bordering on ignorable.

If you say so.   :-*  Yes, the West has more of a reputation for such groups, but you tell me what they'll call people who want to decriminalize drugs and prostitution in the East if not extremists?

Quote
Quote
Easterners are arguably more image-conscious, and are, therefore, more likely to be intimidated by media and social pressure.  Westerners are used to being portrayed as "weirdos," and are less likely to be influenced by what the elites think of them.

"Image-conscious"?  HA!  Howard Dean and Craig Benson would NOT agree with you on that statement.  You're thinking about NY and DC.

Our debates on this forum and on the state discussion lists have demonstrated this to a great degree.  Those who seem worried about how the nation or the world will perceive us are usually in the East.  Westerners tend to have more of a "frankly, my dear" attitude.

Quote
Quote
Media and political elites care less about what happens in the West in general.  They're not likely to go to the same efforts to demonize us in Montana or Wyoming as they would in one of our eastern candidates, and the populations of Wyoming and Montana would very likely be less receptive to such a characterization.  Again, they're used to such treatment, and they think very little of the media and political elite as it is.

So because they're "used to it," it won't happen?  Or they'll ignore it if it does?   ::)

They're more likely to ignore it because they don't get as hung up on what the "suits" think.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on June 30, 2003, 07:25:54 am
Quote
Given the above numbers, it is actually New Hampshire (along with Maine and Idaho) that must live up to higher expections when it comes to job availability, not the lower population states...

WY, however, has what... 36,000 projected jobs for the next ten years?  (Most of those are minimum wage as well, so you will need two EACH.)  Couple that with the fact that 20,000 activists translates to who knows how many people (35,000?).

Thus, we would have to take every single available job in WY for ten years straight.  And considering the fact that I doubt you would even get the 20k members necessary in time before the FSP's deadline expired if you chose WY.  People will take one look at the actual act of moving to WY, laugh, and not sign up.  Of course, this is just speculation since I'm a die-hard activist.

If they did that, it wouldn't much matter.  As the numbers show, we wouldn't need the full 20,000 in Wyoming to create an equivalent impact.  They could go to New Hampshire, as Zxcv has suggested.   I agree with him.  Why not?  :)

Quote
Quote
Also, I'd remind you that Vermont and Maine directly follow New Hampshire in high numbers of elected libertarians, and yet, they are both considerably more statist than other FSP candidates.

Thus, for a couple of very good reasons, a state's number of elected libertarians, density of libertarians, etc., does not necessarily reflect its suitability for this project.  That is unless you can demonstrate some substantial advantage in the current political climate.

False.  Nearby states with high numbers of elected libertarians prove that a movement in NH could spread to those states.  It even proves not only that more libertarians exist in this region, but also that they are not afraid to be known as libertarians.

But it does show that they're not getting much done there in spite of their higher numbers.  This movement could possibly spread to any state, even Massachusetts, but who would want to live under that government while trying to institute reform?  I'd have to say the same thing for Maine and Vermont.

Quote
Quote
As for New Hampshire though, even with its higher numbers of elected libertarians, the hurdle to gaining a legislative majority is still sky-high.

And the "more representation is worse" argument arises yet again.  Why am I not surprised?  Why didn't you just post this one sentence instead of 10 pages of constantly-repeated mentions of it?  Isn't that was propagandists do?  Constantly repeat the same non-argument over and over and over again until the people begin to believe it?

You keep transforming this argument into something it isn't.  Go back and read those posts again.

Quote
Quote
I would maintain that the degree to which we must rely on others to pass our agenda is the degree to which those others will control us.  Are you willing to subject our success to the GOP's approval?

Isn't that what a "libertarian Republican" does?  And there you go with the representation garbage again.   ::)

You seem to be thinking in terms of FSP'ers running only as libertarians.  If they're running as Republicans as well, then that can change the dynamic.  But it doesn't change the number of seats we have to win to achieve a majority.

Quote
Quote
I'd prefer to focus on a state where we can establish a legislative majority more outright, thus making us less reliant upon others for our success.  Why go for a caucus when we could realistically go for a majority?

Yeah!  1 seat is easier to win than 10!  Right?
Wrong.  If we can focus our resources more, so can the Dems and Reps.  Think about it.

See previous remarks on this.

Quote
Quote
Wyoming's LP enjoys Major Party Status, and lacks competition from the Greens, who have not been able to achieve ballot access there.

One whole elected libertarian!  WY has a lot to offer!  ::)
First you attack the relevance of libertarians in order to denounce the clear advantage NH has in that area, then you use WY's LP ballot status as your next argument.

Go research this before you stumble out there so blindly, please.  The reason that Wyoming won Major Party Status is because one of the libertarians running for office got 17% of the vote even though she lost.

Quote
Quote
How about states that can't balance their budget without $80 million in federal funds?  :-)  New Hampshire's Senate finance committee chair has said that without those funds, "We'd be talking about which taxes to raise."

You didn't quite read the statistic there.  NH offers the LOWEST dependence on Federal dollars among ALL candidate states.  This is regardless of the $80M in Federal dollars it received for balancing its budget.  WY just gets a lot more Federal money than you think.  The $80M is nothing more than a highly-visible kickback from a state that asks less from the Fed than EVERY other FSP candidate state.

The significance of it mainly lay in what would have been necessary to balance the budget had that money not been there.  I'm not trying to say that New Hampshire is a heavily dependent state.  I know that's not the case.

Quote
Quote
New Hampshire appears to have less of a gun culture than other states though.  It has an estimated 36% gun ownership rate (compared to 88% for Wyoming), and had only 17 gun shows statewide in 2000 (compared to 50 for Wyoming).  Both states are good on gun freedom, but those to whom firearms are a primary consideration may want to look at a state's gun culture as well.

Perhaps that is something to think about.  This could be an advantage for WY.  However, look at VT's concealed carry and it's flaming socialist culture.  I'm living it and it's real!  Gun freedoms here aren't leaving anytime soon!

Yeah, Vermont is wierd that way.   :D
Title: New Hampshire has new motto
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 05:18:47 pm
We will quit the FSP if we are not chosen.  :o
Title: Re:New Hampshire has new motto
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 05:35:04 pm
Choose our state, or we won't participate.   :o
Title: Re:New Hampshire has new motto
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 05:37:00 pm
I guess when you sing kum baya and the Governor says call me "greg". Using Forrest Gump reasoning we must vote for NH.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on June 30, 2003, 05:41:09 pm
The 101 reasons to vote for New Hampshire has now been downloaded OVER 4500 TIMES!!! Over 3,000 of the downloads have taken place in just the last week or so.
That is more than the number of ALL the porcupines combined...

Michelle rocks the house! :D

JM

Title: Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Stumpy on June 30, 2003, 06:03:34 pm
I have come to the conclusion that New Hampshire is the best choice for the Free State Project. I have not held this opinion for very long. Up until a few weeks ago, I thought it axiomatic that almost any of the western states under consideration would be the best place for the FSP to nudge government back in the direction of freedom.

When I saw that the Governor of New Hampshire is scheduled to address the state’s Libertarian convention, I had an epiphany. Governor Benson is a politician, and he must believe the positives of addressing the New Hampshire Libertarian Party out way the negatives. This led me to a theory, if New Hampshire’s governor will address the state’s LP convention, then libertarianism must be generally accepted in the state. If libertarianism is generally accepted, the FSP will be accepted and not viewed as outsiders imposing their “weird and anti-social” will on the locals.

I didn’t just accept this theory without proof. Trevor S. and I went to New Hampshire and spent the better part of a week testing this theory. We spoke to over 30 persons, ranging from Republican/Libertarians to liberal Democrats, covering most of the state. We spoke to realtors, waitresses, policemen, and retired airline pilots to name a few professions. We asked them, “How would you and the rest of the state react if 20,000 Libertarians from all over the country moved to New Hampshire and got involved in its political process, nudging it towards more freedom.” In EVERY case, including the liberal Democrats, we got the same answer. It may have been worded differently, but EVERYONE said that we would be welcome. We even had a policeman tell us, after we explained libertarianism, that he believed most NH policemen were libertarians.

I am now convinced that New Hampshire should be chosen by the FSP. There are two major and several minor reasons that brought me to this conclusion;
Major reason #1) GENERAL LIBERTARIAN CULTURE  / ACCEPTANCE OF PORCUPINES BY NATIVES
As outlined above, the people of New Hampshire will not greet us at the border with shotguns (as may be the case in some western states) but will accept us in their struggle for more freedom.  â€œLIVE FREE OR DIE” is not just on their tag, it’s a part of their culture.  The state would generally receive us to help “make New Hampshire more like New Hampshire”. If the local population is in general agreement with the goals of the FSP, population becomes less of a factor. In the western states, many hide the fact that they are libertarians. They claim to be independents or republicans. In New Hampshire, there is no need to blush at being a libertarian or Libertarian. Libertarianism is an accepted part of the political landscape and not considered fringe.

Major reason #2) EASE OF GETTING PORCUPINES ELECTED AND EASE TO NUDGE GOVERNMENT BACK TOWARDS FREEDOM
a) The way the state government is configured, much of the government that controls NH is at the township level where it is very easy to get elected. Government in New Hampshire is closer to the individual than any other state under consideration.
b) Most locals object to government control and would welcome (their words) the FSP to help in the fight for more freedom
c) The way the state government collects taxes is VERY favorable for government downsizing. They don’t use a non-invasive, easy to forget income tax that is collected in small amounts from each paycheck. Most of NH’s funding comes from property taxes and NH’s residents must write a large check twice a year to the state government. The tax is universally hated and this will help us in downsizing government.
d) New Hampshire has more Libertarians elected to office than all of the western states combined and has a Libertarian group that knows how to win elections. None of the other states come close to New Hampshire in this respect. Additionally, NH’s Libertarians have a base of knowledge that when augmented with 20,000 activists will make it a force to be reckoned with.
e) New Hampshire is compact so that we won’t be in isolated pockets separated by miles. We will be able to get in the car and drive a few minutes to help each other.

Other reasons
1) New Hampshire offers everyone a place for their life choice, whether it is beaches, cities, desolate mountains areas, rolling hills or farmland.
2) New Hampshire offers a place for both right and left libertarians.  After the vote, the FSP will still need to attract another 15,000 members. New Hampshire’s culture is tolerant of both right and left, thus widening the scope of potential new members. I don’t believe the left-libertarians will see any of the western states under consideration as inviting.
3) NH has jobs. The FSP will need to attract the last 15,000 members to accomplish its mission. This will be easier if those new members can find work in the Free State. Additionally, there is no need to work out of state and pay state income tax to another state.
4) NH has water.
5) The western states are conservative; NH has a definite libertarian slant.

I am neither an Easterner nor a Westerner. I am a Southerner. As a conservative libertarian, I will be comfortable in any of the states that could realistically win the vote. The move for my family, regardless of which state is chosen will be far, expensive and we will have to adapt to a different culture. I write this not to convince you to choose MY state, but rather to share with you why I am absolutely convinced that New Hampshire offers the greatest chance for us to obtain our goal of real liberty.

I submit to the voting members of the Free State Project these reasons why I believe New Hampshire offers the best hope of obtaining “LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME” and respectfully ask that you thoughtfully consider them.

Regards,
Doug H.

P.s. I have met the New Hampshire Libertarians. They aren’t slick marketers or propagandist. They are genuine people who feel they are fortunate to live where they live and believe their state is the best choice for the FSP in its quest for more freedom. The fact that they will make good neighbors is icing on the cake.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 06:09:30 pm
Have you visited any western states yet?
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on June 30, 2003, 06:09:40 pm
What with what everone or a lot of people who keeps posting the NH is the only state that could be considered I really need to check that state out a lot more.

But deep inside, unless there is something so fetching about that state I doubt I would vote for it. To me there are a lot of minuses compared to any pluses.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Penfist on June 30, 2003, 06:21:51 pm
What with what everone or a lot of people who keeps posting the NH is the only state that could be considered I really need to check that state out a lot more.

But deep inside, unless there is something so fetching about that state I doubt I would vote for it. To me there are a lot of minuses compared to any pluses.

What are your minuses? What are your pluses?

For me, the pluses far outweigh the minuses. Perhaps the biggest consideration is the physical size of the state versus the western candidates. 20,000 people can have a much greater impact when they can get together in large numbers on a regular basis. Realistically, that won't happen if people have to drive 12 hours versus 2 to get to the meeting.

Yes, the Internet can be wonderful, but there simply isn't anything to compare to the sense of freedom one gets when surrounded by like minded folks. New Hampshire is the best choice not only because of the freedom minded culture Doug mentioned. Our goals will be easier to implement in a state that doesn't require hundreds of miles of travel to attend get togethers.

I could go on, but I'm curious to hear your pluses and minuses.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 06:25:08 pm
What with what everone or a lot of people who keeps posting the NH is the only state that could be considered I really need to check that state out a lot more.

But deep inside, unless there is something so fetching about that state I doubt I would vote for it. To me there are a lot of minuses compared to any pluses.

What are your minuses? What are your pluses?

For me, the pluses far outweigh the minuses. Perhaps the biggest consideration is the physical size of the state versus the western candidates. 20,000 people can have a much greater impact when they can get together in large numbers on a regular basis. Realistically, that won't happen if people have to drive 12 hours versus 2 to get to the meeting.

Yes, the Internet can be wonderful, but there simply isn't anything to compare to the sense of freedom one gets when surrounded by like minded folks. New Hampshire is the best choice not only because of the freedom minded culture Doug mentioned. Our goals will be easier to implement in a state that doesn't require hundreds of miles of travel to attend get togethers.

I could go on, but I'm curious to hear your pluses and minuses.
If convenience is the FSP goal then you would be correct, but alas liberty is and the best choice is Wyoming.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on June 30, 2003, 06:49:51 pm
Quote
I could go on, but I'm curious to hear your pluses and minuses.  
 
 

 Palindrome

As I said, I would need to check that state out a lot more. But I can tell you this, your pluses is some of my minuses.

People all grouped together. Not able or willing to spread out. So what is wrong with a little traveling time? Nothing compared to freedom. Or it shouldn't be.

The high cost of living is a minus. I am not rich. I will not have a hubbie to help me find and buy some land there. And to start over there.

I am starting to be concerned about the tone here. To me it is starting to sound like........

If you don't pick east coast then it is over.
If you don't want to live as a sardine then you can't possibly believe in and want freedom.
If you mention you are interested in any other state than an east coast one, you are pretty much jumped on (not saying you, but some do do that).
It is coming across as............
If you must work to achieve freedom and if you must sacrifice anything at all to achieve freedom then you don't want to have freedom (not you but some have pretty much said that exact thing).

Freedom is well worth fighting for. If our ancestors had the same mind set as some, then we would still be kneeling to the queen and kissing ass to england.

We can't expect to achieve freedom and not have to pay a cost. That is not reasonable. But  as I said above, seems to be heading in that direction.  We wont be handed a damn thing on a silver platter, we will have to work for it, to earn it.

Now I will check NH out as I have already stated I would. And as I have already stated, it needs to be damnably good to sway me in my beliefs/convictions and needs. And I will post what I find. Ok?
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 06:56:24 pm
Quote
I could go on, but I'm curious to hear your pluses and minuses.  
 
 

 Palindrome

As I said, I would need to check that state out a lot more. But I can tell you this, your pluses is some of my minuses.

People all grouped together. Not able or willing to spread out. So what is wrong with a little traveling time? Nothing compared to freedom. Or it shouldn't be.

The high cost of living is a minus. I am not rich. I will not have a hubbie to help me find and buy some land there. And to start over there.

I am starting to be concerned about the tone here. To me it is starting to sound like........

If you don't pick east coast then it is over.
If you don't want to live as a sardine then you can't possibly believe in and want freedom.
If you mention you are interested in any other state than an east coast one, you are pretty much jumped on (not saying you, but some do do that).
It is coming across as............
If you must work to achieve freedom and if you must sacrifice anything at all to achieve freedom then you don't want to have freedom (not you but some have pretty much said that exact thing).

Freedom is well worth fighting for. If our ancestors had the same mind set as some, then we would still be kneeling to the queen and kissing ass to england.

We can't expect to achieve freedom and not have to pay a cost. That is not reasonable. But  as I said above, seems to be heading in that direction.  We wont be handed a damn thing on a silver platter, we will have to work for it, to earn it.

Now I will check NH out as I have already stated I would. And as I have already stated, it needs to be damnably good to sway me in my beliefs/convictions and needs. And I will post what I find. Ok?
Could not agree more. I think Alaska must have rubbed of on me.  ;D
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Stumpy on June 30, 2003, 07:10:17 pm

People all grouped together. Not able or willing to spread out. So what is wrong with a little traveling time? Nothing compared to freedom. Or it shouldn't be.

The high cost of living is a minus. I am not rich.

I’m not rich either. We looked at plots of land for $300 per acre. Granted these plots weren’t easily accessible, but the cost of land in some parts of NH is down right cheap!

One of NH’s greatest strengths is, if you like city living, NH has it. Look to the south.
If you prefer living in a deserted low population area, NH also has it. Look at Coos (pronounced Coe-ahs) County.
Again, offering BOTH will give the FSP the maximum chance of gaining the other 15,000 members we need.

LIVE FREE OF DIE. LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME. The two just seem to go together.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on June 30, 2003, 07:12:46 pm
The 101 reasons to vote for New Hampshire has now been downloaded OVER 4500 TIMES!!! Over 3,000 of the downloads have taken place in just the last week or so.
That is more than the number of ALL the porcupines combined...

Michelle rocks the house! :D

JM

LOL!

Actually a slight correction: about 2,400 downloads were from last week when we were all away at Escape; I checked right before we left and it was about 2,100. Plus I've had tons of emails thanking me for the report and informing me of new people planning to vote for New Hampshire. It is really pretty exciting. I hope all those people downloading it are reading it!
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on June 30, 2003, 07:14:48 pm
Like I said Doug, I will check your state out. And that is ALL I am willing to promise. That and I will do my best to keep an open mind.

But still, what is wrong with some traveling time? Freedom isn't worth that?  And can't the people who has to travel a little be able to stay overnight with those who wont have to travel?  Hospitality and all you know.  That to me is NOT a major issue.


People all grouped together. Not able or willing to spread out. So what is wrong with a little traveling time? Nothing compared to freedom. Or it shouldn't be.

The high cost of living is a minus. I am not rich.

I’m not rich either. We looked at plots of land for $300 per acre. Granted these plots weren’t easily accessible, but the cost of land in some parts of NH is down right cheap!

One of NH’s greatest strengths is, if you like city living, NH has it. Look to the south.
If you prefer living in a deserted low population area, NH also has it. Look at Coos (pronounced Coe-ahs) County.
Again, offering BOTH will give the FSP the maximum chance of gaining the other 15,000 members we need.

LIVE FREE OF DIE. LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME. The two just seem to go together.

Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on June 30, 2003, 07:20:12 pm
Thank you, Doug! It is awesome to have your support and somewhat validating to have you independently check out and verify what I've been trying to tell people all along.

It was great to get to know you. Hopefully we will all meet together again soon...in the Free State!

Jenlee...I spent a lot of time researching and writing 101 Reasons to Vote for New Hampshire. If you really plan to check out New Hampshire, I hope you will read it.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jgmaynard on June 30, 2003, 07:20:53 pm
I'm glad you're keeping an open mind, Jenlee.... We would be happy to welcome you to New Hampshire.

There is some great info at http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm as well as http://www.freestatenh.com and you can see original photos from around the Granite State, and view live webcams from around the state at http://www.freestatenhlive.com .

State rep races only cost about $500 bucks to run a serious race, and smaller offices cost less.
With fusion candidates (not allowed in most states), we can run as lib/reps or lib/dems or even lib/rep/dems, by only getting a few dozen people to write us in during the primaries.
Multiseat districts mean our candidates can win in some areas by coming in just 5th or 7th.
One 18 year old won election as a state rep in 2002 right out of high school, and IIRC, he only spent ~ $40 for flyers.
NH also has 2 elections every year. Town elections (3 for 3 for the LPNH this year!) and School budgets, city budgets and warrant articles (city issues - only 30 signatures req'd to get an issue on the ballot in a typical city) in the spring, then the city elections (odd years) and state/fed elections in the even #'d years.
We get a chance to completely overturn the state government every 2 years...

It don't get easier than that. :D

JM
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on June 30, 2003, 07:27:52 pm
I'm corrected, Michelle.... I hang my porcupine head in shame.... ;) The last pre-escape # I heard was 1,400.... So I guess it is "only" being downloaded ~ 300x a day. :D

JM
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 07:29:58 pm
I'm corrected, Michelle.... I hang my porcupine head in shame.... ;) The last pre-escape # I heard was 1,400.... So I guess it is "only" being downloaded ~ 300x a day. :D

JM
Come on you never misrepresent the facts.  ::)
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on June 30, 2003, 09:10:34 pm
I didn't say that.

But you hav to remember, people from the midwest on to the west thinks somewhat like that. Me I prefer to keep (or try to keep) an open mind.



If you don't want to live as a sardine then you can't possibly believe in and want freedom.

New Hampshire residents are not sardines.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on June 30, 2003, 09:13:14 pm
I just ran a google search. Not too bad since I have no clue about the names of any towns or any counties there. Made a little interesting reading. I say little cos I was looking for a certain type of info.
Michelle, I would read your 101 Reasons if I find it.

Thank you, Doug! It is awesome to have your support and somewhat validating to have you independently check out and verify what I've been trying to tell people all along.

It was great to get to know you. Hopefully we will all meet together again soon...in the Free State!

Jenlee...I spent a lot of time researching and writing 101 Reasons to Vote for New Hampshire. If you really plan to check out New Hampshire, I hope you will read it.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on June 30, 2003, 09:15:21 pm
Michelle, I would read your 101 Reasons if I find it.

Sorry - it is in the sig file of all my posts. http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-Vote-NH.pdf
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on June 30, 2003, 09:17:27 pm
Michelle, I would read your 101 Reasons if I find it.

Sorry - it is in the sig file of all my posts. http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-Vote-NH.pdf

You should also find lots of info on NH towns and cities here:
http://www.lpnh.org/nh-municipalities.htm
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on June 30, 2003, 09:25:33 pm
I'm corrected, Michelle.... I hang my porcupine head in shame.... ;) The last pre-escape # I heard was 1,400.... So I guess it is "only" being downloaded ~ 300x a day. :D

JM
Come on you never misrepresent the facts.  ::)

Never purposely. And when I make a mistake, I apologize for it, and correct myself. It has happened. But not often.  :)
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on June 30, 2003, 09:28:00 pm
~beats head on desk~

Thank you Michelle, maybe one day I will learn to read a bit better. And wear my glasses more often.

I will check your links out. Got any good links for The Great North Woods ( hope that is right), the northern part of the state. Property and the like? So far all I have found is not much. But I am sure I am looking in ALL the wrong places.

Michelle, I would read your 101 Reasons if I find it.

Sorry - it is in the sig file of all my posts. http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-Vote-NH.pdf

You should also find lots of info on NH towns and cities here:
http://www.lpnh.org/nh-municipalities.htm

Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: DarthGalt on June 30, 2003, 09:34:42 pm
      NH has little space for expansion. The free state must have room to gorw and accept as many people who yearn to live free as we all do. NH can't handle 10 million people without turning into a dump. WY can handle millions and millions.
      After the constitution of the state is scrubbed and freedom is at hand, the rest of the nation will start to look at us. Many will be jealous but many will get in there car and move. We must accomadate these people. We need numbers to survive and build a strong national party.
     This fight is for the freedom of your children, your grand children, and the rest the follow in your line. We must take back what the founders gave us and show them why it worked and that it can work.
      Our goal shouldn't be a members only club in NH but a paradise for all who love freedom and an example to all that doubt it. WY has the room for this.
       The ideas of the people of WY are close enough to ours that we can make it happen. The Rocky Mountain Time Zone is ripe for the picking. The wild west was not that long ago. CO, ID, SD,ND are all close to WY and a few of them are on our list of possible states.
        Expansion to those states and building some real power in the senate and the electoral college is easier from a Rocky Mountain jumping point t and moves us toward the larger goals down the line. Sure it may be a little harder to take the public in WY with us, but that extra effort will be worth the long term gains.
         

Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: alecmuller on June 30, 2003, 09:52:59 pm
If convenience is the FSP goal then you would be correct, but alas liberty is and the best choice is Wyoming.
Quote

How is this supposed to help convince me that WY is better than NH?

It's easy to pooh-hoo convenience and say that true liberty-lovers are just as willing to drive 7 hours as they are 4, but I'm not convinced.  No matter how much I love freedom, my days still have 24 hours in them just like yours or those damn statists we're all trying to protect ourselves from.  If gatherings aren't as far away I'll attend more of them, which will probably be true for most of the 20,000 people we'll be working with.  I'm not ready to label a person as undedicated and forsake their labor just because they're not willing to drive as far as I am.  We've got a big task ahead of us and inconvenient transportation will make it that much bigger, so the convenience of travel distances is one of many criteria that I'll be taking into consideration.

I'm asking sincerely here - what specific parts of Doug's comments do you find incorrect, misleading or irrelevant, and what is the reasoning behind your conclusions?  Logic will convince me, but unsupported opinions won't.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Karl on June 30, 2003, 10:21:54 pm
Hi DarthGalt!  Welcome to forum!

     NH has little space for expansion. The free state must have room to gorw and accept as many people who yearn to live free as we all do. NH can't handle 10 million people without turning into a dump. WY can handle millions and millions.

Well, even with such an extraordinarily improbable (and undesirable) scenerio, Wyoming would have severe water problems, and most certainly could not support 10 million people without severely rationing water.  Places with similar ecologies as NH, such as Boston and New York City easily house that many people without water shortages.

Quote
     After the constitution of the state is scrubbed and freedom is at hand, the rest of the nation will start to look at us. Many will be jealous but many will get in there car and move. We must accomadate these people. We need numbers to survive and build a strong national party.

Making major changes to a state constitution isn't easy.  In Wyoming, it requires 2/3 vote in the legislature, and majority approval by voters, but those requirements are similar in most states.  Whatever state is chosen, we're going to really mess with politics.  In NH, it'll be par for the course.  In WY, where politics isn't a pastime, people may get upset when state and local politics becomes charged, and our opponents come out of hiding.

Quote
    This fight is for the freedom of your children, your grand children, and the rest the follow in your line. We must take back what the founders gave us and show them why it worked and that it can work.

Let's do it!

Quote
     Our goal shouldn't be a members only club in NH but a paradise for all who love freedom and an example to all that doubt it. WY has the room for this.

It would and could never be a "members only club" in any state, including NH; we must have much of the population on board.  We already do throughout NH.

Quote
      The ideas of the people of WY are close enough to ours that we can make it happen. The Rocky Mountain Time Zone is ripe for the picking. The wild west was not that long ago. CO, ID, SD,ND are all close to WY and a few of them are on our list of possible states.

The ideas of the people of NH are as well, possibly even moreso.

Quote
       Expansion to those states and building some real power in the senate and the electoral college is easier from a Rocky Mountain jumping point t and moves us toward the larger goals down the line. Sure it may be a little harder to take the public in WY with us, but that extra effort will be worth the long term gains.

We've got to put 100% of our effort on the chosen state.  We'll have to put national politics and visions of a Greater Freetopia on the back burner for years to come.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: DarthGalt on June 30, 2003, 10:43:32 pm
Nice to meet ya Karl,

     Sorry, but it's hard for me to get the big picture out of my mind and even harder to see a free-state on the East Coast. The establishment wouldn't want us near their Utopias. We would be safer and deemed as less of a threat in a place like WY.

    When NH selects Howard Dean for the Dems, will you then still beleive they are a potential free-state?

 
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: LibertyLover on June 30, 2003, 11:09:45 pm
Hi DarthGalt, welcome to the forum.

I agree with your reasons for preferring WY and have made the same arguments myself. I particularly like your positive attitude about what we may be able to accomplish. I think WY is the best choice whether best case or worst case scenarios actually happen.

However, NH is a great choice if neither best nor worst case happens. There has been a lot of negative campaigning on this forum because of the different advantages and disadvantages these two states have. I'm hoping that most people rank them #1 and #2 depending on which factors they think are more important. Both states do have great advantages.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Karl on June 30, 2003, 11:36:31 pm
   When NH selects Howard Dean for the Dems, will you then still beleive they are a potential free-state?

Yes, I would, because it would mean little.  But the question is presumptuous, since we don't have a poll yet (do we?).  The whole slate of Democrats are awful.  But one of them has to win, right?  And even then that only represents registered Democrats, not the whole state.  Since the vote is split 9 ways, how well will that reflect the views of NH Democrats, unless one gets a clear majority?  Which one do you think would be satisfactory?  Uber-hawk Lieberman?  I-Never-Met-A-Spending-Bill-I-Didn't-Like Kerry?

Believe it or not, Dean is more libertarian on some issues than you might think.  He was the only one of the lot to oppose the unconstitutional and unjustified war in Iraq.  He also has stated that he (mostly) opposes new Federal gun laws, and he strongly opposes Federal education mandates.

But in the end, we're comparing shades of black here.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: RacecaR on July 01, 2003, 12:13:05 am
Quote
We spoke to over 30 persons, ranging from Republican/Libertarians to liberal Democrats, covering most of the state.

Republican/Libertarians?  Republicans and Libertarians are opposed to each other.  Republicans support large government and are against personal responsibility and liberty.

Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: BobW on July 01, 2003, 02:40:34 am
Hi Alec,

Re # 18;

Your example on driving time is a major criteria for me.

If this stuff wasn't volunteer work, it might not matter.  In my case it does because my volunteer political work must be meshed into my work schedule.

I am researching a move to Cheyenne.  This will allow me to attend conferences and hearings since it's the state capitol.

My prime area of interest in politics is the world trade issues. This requires attendence at a Federal Regional Center.  For Wyoming, it is Denver, about a 2 hour drive; ie a day trip.

Helena would mean I could not participate.  Ditto Boise.

Driving and the related such as lodging, must definitely be consideered for volunteers.  My lodging plans are a place in Cheyenne the same night as the Denver meeting.

BobW
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: freedomroad on July 01, 2003, 03:29:37 am
I'm corrected, Michelle.... I hang my porcupine head in shame.... ;) The last pre-escape # I heard was 1,400.... So I guess it is "only" being downloaded ~ 300x a day. :D

JM
Come on you never misrepresent the facts.  ::)

Never purposely. And when I make a mistake, I apologize for it, and correct myself. It has happened. But not often.  :)

Does that mean you are going to stop saying that the Wyoming Gov told the FSP to move to Idaho, when he really said that we are welcome in Wyoming?  Could you please apologize to this Gov?  Thank you for fessing up to your mistaken misrepresentation of the facts  ::)
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: LibertyLover on July 01, 2003, 03:32:02 am
Quote
We spoke to over 30 persons, ranging from Republican/Libertarians to liberal Democrats, covering most of the state.

Republican/Libertarians?  Republicans and Libertarians are opposed to each other.  Republicans support large government and are against personal responsibility and liberty.


Please think about this. We all know that Republican Presidents and Congresses have not kept their campaign promises to cut gov't spending and promote individual liberty, but they would never have made those promises if there weren't a lot of Republicans who wanted smaller government and more liberty. Believe it or not, there are even some Democrats who want the government to get out of some areas.

If you consider everyone who is registered Democrat or Republican as an enemy, you will severely limit the number of allies you can hope to gain. Very few human beings, even Libertarians, are ideologically "pure," so every political party is made up of people with a range of beliefs about how much government is necessary for civil society.

We know that all the FSP members are freedom-loving people because they are willing to move to another state to promote freedom, but they aren't all Libertarians. I don't know if we have any liberal Democrat members, but we certainly have people with beliefs ranging from paleoconservative (Republican) to anarchocapitalist. Insulting or picking a fight with someone who is on your side on a lot of issues is counter-productive.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on July 01, 2003, 08:03:53 am
Does that mean you are going to stop saying that the Wyoming Gov told the FSP to move to Idaho, when he really said that we are welcome in Wyoming?  Could you please apologize to this Gov?  Thank you for fessing up to your mistaken misrepresentation of the facts  ::)

Yes, it means exactly that. Sorry, I mixed up WY with MT... WY's Govs office said (And I am paraphrasing - I'm sure I'll get bashed if I'm off by a word ::)) "They are welcome to come up, but they would be subject to the same laws as everyone else". Not exactly positive, but not negative, either.
It was Monatana's Govs office that said we should go to ID.... And now another state govs office has weighed in on the matter... "We have a neighbor to the east they could consider," suggests Jason Gibbs, press secretary to Governor Jim Douglas of Vermont.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on July 01, 2003, 11:26:52 am
So I guess it is "only" being downloaded ~ 300x a day. :D

Yup...I guess it is  :)

I just checked the stats again. Total downloads - 4,853. That is an increase over yesterday of 340!
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: LeRuineur6 on July 01, 2003, 01:03:52 pm
I'll finish my reply later.  My wife is very sick right now.   :'(

Ugh.  My wife came down with the flu and was more sick than I have ever seen her in my life.  I stayed up all day, all night on Sunday and Monday taking care of her and I was extremely irritable, so what did I decide to do?  Post on the FSP!  What a mistake.

I never should have posted that night.  Robert, I am very, very sorry for my attitude and everything I said.  You were on the receiving end of a lot of grief and you did not deserve any of it at all.

I apologize to everyone for significantly lowering the levels of intellect and maturity in the debate that night.  That will not happen again.

Looking back at my posts, I am severely embarrassed, ashamed, and traumatized at my own words that night.  Thus, I have removed all content from my posts which I would not have posted had I realized my own state of mind at the time.

And I'll go crawl into a hole now.  :-[
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on July 01, 2003, 02:52:41 pm
Ugh.  My wife came down with the flu and was more sick than I have ever seen her in my life.  

Come back when you can, and when you are ready.

All of us NH supporters wish you and your wife the best. Our thoughts are with you.

JM
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on July 01, 2003, 03:25:59 pm
Did Tim Condon post his impressions of New Hampshire on the web board? I can't find it, so here it is copied from the email discussion list.

Let me toss out a few words here about my impression of New Hampshire, the
New Hampshire Getaway (which is still going on, albeit without me), and the
New Hampshire Porcupines. As the author of an article endorsing Wyoming as
the best choice for the Free State (the only FSP board member so unwise to
do such a thing), I was invited to the Getaway to speak on "Why New
Hampshire Would Make a Great Free State."

I flew into the state's biggest city, Manchester, in the southern part of
the state, on Saturday morning. The biggest cities, Nashua and Manchester,
are in the southern half of the state where the biggest population
concentration is. Even so, driving through and out of Manchester, I didn't
get any sense of being hemmed in by over-population; it's a bustling city,
but not huge and not "out of control." As I headed north to the Getaway in
the resort town of Lancaster, I found that New Hampshire is divided into
two parts, the southern, more urbanized portion, and the northern part on
the other side of the White Mountains (called "north of the notches,"
referring to the mountain passes that lead to the northern part of the
state). The northern part of the state is sparsely settled, open, wild, and
beautiful, but particularly when you're in and around the White Mountains.
During the summertime the entire countryside is bursting with greenery, and
reminded me somewhat of my home state of Florida, which is green *all* year
around.

My first impression of the people of New Hampshire, at the Manchester
airport, was that they're "healthy." Both young and healthy. There are
older people present, to be sure, but not in the numbers or percentages
that I'm used to in Florida. The northern climate, I thought to myself,
must combine with a youthful population and plentiful outdoor recreation
opportunities to make people look...well, like I said, "healthy"!
Driving north on Interstate 93, I noted that by far most motorcyclists
didn't wear helmets. Also notable is the lack of a seatbelt law for adults.
Only if you're *under* age 18 are you supposed to "buckle up," as the signs
on the highways advise. I took the opportunity to drive off of the
Interstate and through the countryside on my way, to see what it looked
like. Very quaint. Very green. Very wooded. Very..."New Englandy." It was
nice. There are lots of small animals running around too during the summer,
including squirrels, chipmunks, and something furry and long (weasels?
ferrets? mink?).

When I got to the campground Saturday afternoon I immediately linked up
with Joe from Massachusetts, Spear from Maryland, Jeff from New Hampshire,
Tony from Connecticut, and Patrick from...from...Patrick, where *are* you
from? We all went the short distance into town to a small restaurant for
dinner, and talked all the way through our meal. I took the opportunity to
talk to all the waitresses and bar tenders and receptionists at the
restaurants I visited while on the trip. Again, it gave me a way to gauge
what New Hampshire people are like. I found them uniformly friendly, easy
to talk to, willing to answer questions, and with ready smiles. They speak
well for New Hampshire.

The other impression I wanted to get was of my fellow Porcupines. Over the
next two days I spent one night around a campfire drinking, ahem, beverages
with perhaps a dozen other FSP members until after 3:30 a.m. It was so much
fun that no one wanted to leave until they absolutely had to. The
camradarie was extremely easy among all of us. The second night, Sunday, I
only made it to about 2:00 a.m...but the next morning I found out that four
of them had stayed up around the fire talking and enjoying each other's
company...until the *sky* started getting light the next morning! Through
it all I made it a point to ask lots of questions of everyone about what
state they were from, what they did for a living, etc. (only one person
said "none of your business," and I'm not sure he was even an FSP member).
Two things struck me about these people, two facts that are really quite
amazing. One is how "normal" everyone was. I mean, when you get a bunch of
libertarians and other freedom-lovers together, you're bound to have some
who have been abducted by the Bilderburgers, some with antennae on their
heads, some carrying hand grenades with the pins pulled, etc. But here it
was not the case at all! Around that fire were a lawyer, a business
owner/entrepreneur, a housewife/mother/ home schooler, a teacher, a couple
of retirees, an engineer, a computer programmer..."etc."

The *second* strange thing about the people at the NH Getaway was how
*friendly* everyone was, and how well we all got along (even when a group
of us invaded the group across the way around the campfire at about 1:00
a.m., singing Kum-bai-ya at them as we attacked). Although there was
continuous, spirited discussion about every possible subject in the world
relating to freedom, individuality, libertarianism, and philosophy in
general...try as I might I couldn't get a real fight started! Abortion?
Usually a sure-fire fight-starter. Nothing happened (and about half were
pro-life and half were pro-choice at that fire). How about the old flamer,
"minarchism vs. anarchism." Oh yeah, now *there's* a way to get a battle
going. Everyone staked out their position---about half and half once
again---and all continued happily talking and discussing. No tempers
flared. No hard feelings. Respect all around. I went on and tried out
privatizing roads, Republicans vs. Democrats, taxation, privatizing roads,
the war in Iraq...you name it. About the biggest disagreement we got into
around that fire was whether the Freestate militia should standardize on
.223, or .308, or have no standardization at all. Yak, yak, YAK! Plenty of
spirited discussion, and no bad manners! It was great! And, needless to
say, there was *plenty* of discussion about "which state," although nearly
everyone favored either New Hampshire or Vermont. But still...mutual
respect and affection held sway. I *like* these people, I found myself
thinking.

There were two people at the New Hampshire Getaway who had also attended
the Grand Western Conference, Amanda from Massachusetts, and Nick from
Kentucky. So over the weekend we were able to ask them about the two
meetings, and what their impressions were of the two sides of the country.
(Amanda likes New Hampshire, followed by Vermont; I never got around to
questioning Nick about his preferences.) That was nice too. States and
areas represented included NH, VT, CT, DC, PA, MO, KY, SC, NJ, OH, MA, FL,
GA, TX, and AL...if you can believe that. And that was even before the
entire contingent of attendees arrived at the week-long conclave.
Another strange, even surreal, thing was finally meeting people who I'd
been snarling, debating, fighting and corresponding with online for the
past year and more. Jim Maynard. Keith Murphy. Amanda Phillips. Doug
Hillman. Dave Mincin. Rich Tomasso. Michelle Dumas. Elizabeth McKinstry
(nope, I had never met Elizabeth in person before the Getaway). And lots of
others. It was *very* strange meeting these people for the first time...and
lots of fun! All turned out to be interesting, thoughtful, and friendly
people (even though Keith and Michelle wanted to keep on telling me all
weekend that they really *didn't* have a plot going to...oh, nevermind.)
The speeches on Sunday, June 22nd, were all interesting and thoughtful
(except maybe mine, but I got lots of laughs as I tried to explain why I
was making a case for New Hampshire after endorsing Wyoming *and* North
Dakota). It was quite interesting. I really enjoyed it.

But perhaps the *greatest* idea that came out of the entire weekend was
this: Each year we should all come together in a Freedom Festival...in the
Free State! By this time next year the state will have been chosen, and
everyone agreed that it will be a *blast* to invite *all* the FSP members
to a get-together, no matter which state is chosen. "It will be a Sturgis
for libertarians," said Doug Hillman from Alabama, referring to the titanic
motorcycle gathering in North Dakota each year. "Or like Daytona's Bike
Week," I said, where 50,000 people regularly converge. Except in our case,
it's going to be thousands (and more thousands, each year) of libertarians
and other freedom-lovers converging on the chosen state, for a Freestate
Festival of Freedom, every year. Now *that* is a cool idea. Because of
that, I'll doubtless see you all "next year in the Freestate!" ---Tim Condon
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on July 01, 2003, 03:42:10 pm
Thank you muchly for this link. I have bookmarked it and even have scanned over it. I really do appreciate links. Google for as good as it is, IF you aren't sure what to look for, you can search til the cows come home and still don't find what you need.

Got any good links for The Great North Woods ( hope that is right), the northern part of the state. Property and the like? So far all I have found is not much. But I am sure I am looking in ALL the wrong places.

Much information about the state can be found at:

http://www.nh.com/

And there are links there to more.  :)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 01, 2003, 06:23:43 pm
Reason 102!

Michele and Amanda!  Had the opportunity to meet and talk to them both.  Freedom fighters for sure and pretty too!  So you have your flow charts and numbers. I'll take Michele and Amanda! :)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Stumpy on July 01, 2003, 06:25:52 pm
Hi Dave,
Wouldn't that be 102 AND 103?  ::)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on July 01, 2003, 06:35:16 pm
Reason 102!

Michele and Amanda!  Had the opportunity to meet and talk to them both.  Freedom fighters for sure and pretty too!  So you have your flow charts and numbers. I'll take Michele and Amanda! :)


Thanks Dave! I'm blushing   :)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Penfist on July 01, 2003, 06:40:24 pm
Don't worry Dave,

We'll find you a sexy libertarian wench who likes to stay up drinking and talking loudly well into the night.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Stumpy on July 01, 2003, 06:49:21 pm
Don't worry Dave,

We'll find you a sexy libertarian wench who likes to stay up drinking and talking loudly well into the night.

We do want Dave to leave the house occasionally, don’t we?
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Penfist on July 01, 2003, 06:50:07 pm
Yes,

That's why we need to find a social butterfly like him who happens to be female and get them together.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on July 01, 2003, 06:55:51 pm
Yes,
That's why we need to find a social butterfly like him who happens to be female and get them together.

My vote is for Jackie in Oregon. Seems like a perfect match (minus the wench comment of course!)   :D
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Penfist on July 01, 2003, 07:01:32 pm
Jackie likes to sing loudly. Dave talks loudly. I suppose those two personality traits are compatible :)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 01, 2003, 07:54:18 pm
Thanks so much guys, I need all the help I can get ???  I promise to go home when asked politely :)  and Michele think you look great in red  ;)

Dave

PS do agree Stumpy should be reasons 102 and 103!
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Mike Lorrey on July 01, 2003, 08:57:20 pm
     NH has little space for expansion. The free state must have room to gorw and accept as many people who yearn to live free as we all do. NH can't handle 10 million people without turning into a dump. WY can handle millions and millions.

DarthGalt, you've obviously NEVER been to New Hampshire. The northern two thirds of the state are underdeveloped and undeveloped by significant degrees. Even in the southern part of the state there are significant areas of wilderness. There are a number of townships with no inhabitants in northern NH.

Anybody who attended the Esc2NH knows what you are claiming is quite different from reality.

Furthermore, I'll bet every acre of NH ecology can handle more people than any square mile of Wyoming. I'll bet the average acre of land here has more blades of grass and trees than the average square mile of Wyoming.

Quote
     After the constitution of the state is scrubbed and freedom is at hand, the rest of the nation will start to look at us. Many will be jealous but many will get in there car and move. We must accomadate these people. We need numbers to survive and build a strong national party.

Fortunately, NH doesn't need its constitution to be scrubbed, not nearly as badly as Wyoming needs it...

Quote
    This fight is for the freedom of your children, your grand children, and the rest the follow in your line. We must take back what the founders gave us and show them why it worked and that it can work.
      Our goal shouldn't be a members only club in NH but a paradise for all who love freedom and an example to all that doubt it. WY has the room for this.

Wyoming has space only because there is absolutely nothing filling that space at present, including water, women, and jobs.

Quote
      The ideas of the people of WY are close enough to ours that we can make it happen. The Rocky Mountain Time Zone is ripe for the picking. The wild west was not that long ago. CO, ID, SD,ND are all close to WY and a few of them are on our list of possible states.

The wild west was an era of federal fascism, corporate looting, and the conning of millions of homesteaders out of their wealth and lives to live in a desert.

Quote
       Expansion to those states and building some real power in the senate and the electoral college is easier from a Rocky Mountain jumping point t and moves us toward the larger goals down the line. Sure it may be a little harder to take the public in WY with us, but that extra effort will be worth the long term gains.  

We have not got that long. We want liberty in our lifetime.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on July 01, 2003, 09:04:49 pm
Yep and bookmarked so I can reread it, lol several times.

Thank you muchly for this link. I have bookmarked it and even have scanned over it. I really do appreciate links. Google for as good as it is, IF you aren't sure what to look for, you can search til the cows come home and still don't find what you need.

Have you found www.greatnorthwoods.org yet?
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Robert H. on July 01, 2003, 10:28:42 pm
I never should have posted that night.  Robert, I am very, very sorry for my attitude and everything I said.  You were on the receiving end of a lot of grief and you did not deserve any of it at all.

LeRuineur6,

No hard feelings.   :)  I was probably a bit more sarcastic with you at times than I should have been, as well.

I understand very well what it is to have someone close to you in pain, and how that can affect you.  When our second child was born, he was a month premature and had difficulty breathing without assistance.  The doctors weren't sure that he was going to make it and that was unquestionably the hardest night of my life.  I certainly wasn't myself at the time.

I hope your wife is doing better now.   :)
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Rich T. on July 02, 2003, 03:57:10 pm
New Hampshire residents are not sardines.
I didn't say that.

But you hav to remember, people from the midwest on to the west thinks somewhat like that. Me I prefer to keep (or try to keep) an open mind.

That's something I thought we dispelled a while ago. I've lived in small towns most of my life, and I don't see even the big towns in NH has crowded at all.

We made a stop driving up to Escape to borrow my dad's digital camera. My friend Jack was wondering why I turned down what looked like a road to nowhere. It was their 400' driveway that winds between two groves of trees for privacy. I know folks who live in the biggest towns like Merrimack and Hudson and you'd think they were in the middle of nowhere once you get to them, or dropped back to a quaint 19th century township.

If you want privacy and space, there's plenty available in the East, even in the "big cities". I just flew out of Manchester last week and couldn't help but notice how much green space there is in the city as you fly over it.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Rich T. on July 02, 2003, 04:14:01 pm
For me, the pluses far outweigh the minuses. Perhaps the biggest consideration is the physical size of the state versus the western candidates. 20,000 people can have a much greater impact when they can get together in large numbers on a regular basis. Realistically, that won't happen if people have to drive 12 hours versus 2 to get to the meeting.
If convenience is the FSP goal then you would be correct, but alas liberty is and the best choice is Wyoming.

True enough that convenience should not be our primary concern. But there has to be something said for a state like NH where the entirety of the 20,000 porcupines could be moved to within an hour of the state capital (probably even within 30 minutes) in a variety of cities and towns, and have ample job, school and cultural opportunities and still not be very crowded.

One email blast and we could have a thousand people show up for a rally without anyone having to give up an entire day for driving.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Stumpy on July 02, 2003, 04:23:05 pm
True enough that convenience should not be our primary concern. But there has to be something said for a state like NH where the entirety of the 20,000 porcupines could be moved to within an hour of the state capital (probably even within 30 minutes) in a variety of cities and towns, and have ample job, school and cultural opportunities and still not be very crowded.

One email blast and we could have a thousand people show up for a rally without anyone having to give up an entire day for driving.

So, a compact Free State would therefore increase the pool of activist available to any of our causes statewide.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Rearden on July 02, 2003, 07:31:51 pm
Reason 102!

Michele and Amanda!  Had the opportunity to meet and talk to them both.  Freedom fighters for sure and pretty too!  So you have your flow charts and numbers. I'll take Michele and Amanda! :)


You know, we win this thing and Rachel from North Carolina moves up there, we can borrow her "Ladies of Liberty" calendar idea and raise some serious bucks for the FSP.

Rachel,
Michelle,
Amanda,
Jackie,
Bonnie

...

OK, that leaves us short seven months.  

Dave, oh Dave, can you find us more women?  I mean, you did such a great job raising money and all.  Maybe you can ask Gary if we can borrow Erika for a day, and tell Craig to send up his interns.

LOL
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 02, 2003, 07:42:08 pm
Reason 102!

Michele and Amanda!  Had the opportunity to meet and talk to them both.  Freedom fighters for sure and pretty too!  So you have your flow charts and numbers. I'll take Michele and Amanda! :)


You know, we win this thing and Rachel from North Carolina moves up there, we can borrow her "Ladies of Liberty" calendar idea and raise some serious bucks for the FSP.

Rachel,
Michelle,
Amanda,
Jackie,
Bonnie

...

OK, that leaves us short seven months.  

Dave, oh Dave, can you find us more women?  I mean, you did such a great job raising money and all.  Maybe you can ask Gary if we can borrow Erika for a day, and tell Craig to send up his interns.

LOL
Are we talking about winning a free state or vote? If the goal is free state then it is Wyoming. If your goal is to win a vote then we have already lost. Instead of working against Free State Wyoming why not work together?
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 02, 2003, 08:26:33 pm
Zioncurtain,

We are working for a Free State, one in a place they call the Granite State!

Keith,

Forgive my oversight.  Truly Rachel, Jackie, and Bonnie should also be on our list of incredible ladies.

Ahh just remembered I got a contact for the Ladies of Liberty in Western PA. at the Getaway!  They are looking for a token male :).  Who said this fighting for freedom can't be fun too!  Just maybe I can widdle down the FSP ratio of males to females and have a little fun too!

See you in NH soon my friend!!

Dave
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jenlee on July 02, 2003, 08:34:42 pm
The granite state? And yet the vote hasn't been casted.

Sometimes I wonder what this is all about.

Maybe just so a few men can meet women perhaps. As per this thread.

I am still not convinced NH is the best choice. Sometimes I think the east coast is trying to make sure their state is chosen whether or not it is the best for all concerned. Sometimes I feel as tho the east coast has already got what they want and this is just a game/play time.

No where have I read where the governor or senator or who ever he is really wants FSP there. So what about a casually tossed out comment. Anyone can do that. That is not proof. Sometimes I really wonder.

Zioncurtain,

We are working for a Free State, one in a place they call the Granite State!

Keith,

Forgive my oversight.  Truly Rachel, Jackie, and Bonnie should also be on our list of incredible ladies.

Ahh just remembered I got a contact for the Ladies of Liberty in Western PA. at the Getaway!  They are looking for a token male :).  Who said this fighting for freedom can't be fun too!  Just maybe I can widdle down the FSP ratio of males to females and have a little fun too!

See you in NH soon my friend!!

Dave
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jenlee on July 02, 2003, 08:50:44 pm
What is the property taxes like in NH? I have asked this before but have never gotten even a glimmer of an answer.

I know it has one of the highest property taxes of the selected states but I need to know how much. Since I will be a land owner where ever we move to.

Also, please excuse my negative attitude right now, I just paid my property tax up here.

Also what other kind of taxes is there?

I hate taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 02, 2003, 08:59:11 pm
Jenlee,

I most certainly respect your right to choice the state that you feel would be best as our new home.  Isn't freedom about freedom of choice?

As for me it is not about the east-west thing, I don't care what anyone wants to say that is not me, and know one knows that truly but me.  Let me say for the record 'It is not.'

I'm 700+ miles from NH and could drive to WY just as quick.

Not knowing you personally I do not know what makes you click other that your love of freedom that binds us all.

For me it will be very difficult to leave the place I was born, my family, and my friends.  The city I truly love, politics aside.

I have watched what has been going on in NH and like many have sometimes wondered?  But after being at the Getaway, meeting the people there from both NH and from afar I am convienced that it is the best place to go to create a free state.

I so wish you could have felt the feeling there.  I want a free state, but I want more, a feel of community, a feeling of friendship, and the feeling that together we can really make this happen.

I got that in my brief stay in NH, and will do everything in my power to see that NH wins the fair and free election, save dishonor.

Dave
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on July 02, 2003, 09:04:29 pm
What is the property taxes like in NH? I have asked this before but have never gotten even a glimmer of an answer.

I know it has one of the highest property taxes of the selected states but I need to know how much. Since I will be a land owner where ever we move to.

Also, please excuse my negative attitude right now, I just paid my property tax up here.

Also what other kind of taxes is there?

I hate taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jenlee - if you hate taxes, you'll fit right in in New Hampshire! Seriously! New Hampshire's taxes per capita are the lowest in the nation. No sales tax. No income tax. People in New Hampshire hate taxes.

I read on another thread where Keith or someone gave you the answer to the property tax question. We have a statewide property tax that was $6.00 per $1000. It was then cut to $5.80 per thousand...and is in the works to be cut nearly in half from that. In addition, nearly everything is funded at a local level in NH, so local property taxes vary by municipality. It just depends on where you choose to live. I live in a city where they are fairly high, but if FSP comes to NH we are seriously considering a move to a town where they are lower. I could move 30 minutes from here and cut my tax bill in half.

Do you still have those links to NH municipalities sorted by population and population density that I gave you? Click through to some of the community profile reports, the property tax is specified in each one.

FWIW, as much as I HATE PROPERTY TAX, this method of funding is an advantage to the FSP and the primary reason that overall taxes remain so low in NH. When you get your tax bill and need to write a check for one lump sum, it is painful. It keeps people vigilant about guarding about tax increases.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Michelle on July 02, 2003, 09:21:04 pm
Sometimes I think the east coast is trying to make sure their state is chosen whether or not it is the best for all concerned.

Jenlee...I know these are just words and there isn't really any way to make you believe them, but I promise you that I care very deeply about the success of the FSP. If I thought in any way that another state other than New Hampshire was the place in which the FSP has the absolute best chance of succeeding, I would support that state. I came to my decision about New Hampshire through extensive research which I have done my best to share with other members.

At this point, all I can tell you is that you need to delve into the research of all the states, keep an open mind, and come to your own decision. Whatever that decision is, I will respect it. What drives me absolutely crazy is all of this irrational east/west bias. It is very likely that after New Hampshire, at least one and maybe two of my #2 and #3 states will be a western one (actually, I'm beginning to think AK will be up there, but don't think it is classified as a western state).
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jenlee on July 02, 2003, 09:33:03 pm
I'm usually not such a negative attitude type person, just about once a year I hit rock bottom. And I wish to apologize to any and all I have irked/upset etc today. I am sorry.

And yes I still have the links. And I will go and look where they told me the tax rates, I missed it some how.

And no Alaska isn't west coast. It is a totally different state from all others.

Now off to read more.

Also going to post something and hope someone's paper will show the story since I can't seem to pull it up on my online one. I so don't like ADN sometimes.

Sometimes I think the east coast is trying to make sure their state is chosen whether or not it is the best for all concerned.

Jenlee...I know these are just words and there isn't really any way to make you believe them, but I promise you that I care very deeply about the success of the FSP. If I thought in any way that another state other than New Hampshire was the place in which the FSP has the absolute best chance of succeeding, I would support that state. I came to my decision about New Hampshire through extensive research which I have done my best to share with other members.

At this point, all I can tell you is that you need to delve into the research of all the states, keep an open mind, and come to your own decision. Whatever that decision is, I will respect it. What drives me absolutely crazy is all of this irrational east/west bias. It is very likely that after New Hampshire, at least one and maybe two of my #2 and #3 states will be a western one (actually, I'm beginning to think AK will be up there, but don't think it is classified as a western state).
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jenlee on July 02, 2003, 09:39:59 pm
Dave

Unless things change and changes majorly, I too will be moving. And any state will be a distance. Which is cool with me as long as it is the best state for all concerned.

I am looking at anywhere from 2,000+ miles to up around 17,000+ (more or less) miles in which I must move.

Which is why I am getting a bit tired of the games all seems to be playing here. Me I don't really care where it is. I haven't come to a firm descision on which state I think is the best. I do believe with all my heart and soul, Alaska is the best state. But I know it doesn't stand a chance. So now I must try to decide which of the other 9, out of the 9, is the best one for all concerned. Not too much different in several 100 miles and around 17,000. Move I shall, once all is decided and once I get everything done here.

So, heres to finding the best state for all   :)

I wish I was able to go to a couple of the eastern states tho. Just to see myself how people are there and how they regard out of staters. That would help but I don't have that much time.

Jenlee,

I most certainly respect your right to choice the state that you feel would be best as our new home.  Isn't freedom about freedom of choice?

As for me it is not about the east-west thing, I don't care what anyone wants to say that is not me, and know one knows that truly but me.  Let me say for the record 'It is not.'

I'm 700+ miles from NH and could drive to WY just as quick.

Not knowing you personally I do not know what makes you click other that your love of freedom that binds us all.

For me it will be very difficult to leave the place I was born, my family, and my friends.  The city I truly love, politics aside.

I have watched what has been going on in NH and like many have sometimes wondered?  But after being at the Getaway, meeting the people there from both NH and from afar I am convienced that it is the best place to go to create a free state.

I so wish you could have felt the feeling there.  I want a free state, but I want more, a feel of community, a feeling of friendship, and the feeling that together we can really make this happen.

I got that in my brief stay in NH, and will do everything in my power to see that NH wins the fair and free election, save dishonor.

Dave
Title: Re:NH should not be picked...
Post by: Karl on July 03, 2003, 11:47:39 am
New Hampshirites could vote against even Porcupines if they didn't like 'em for personal reasons or just to be spiteful.

So might any state, including Wyoming.

Quote
New Hampshire fans can try to explain that they hate Bush,
but NH VOTED FOR BUSH in 1988 by 281,537 to 163,696.

Joe, you know darn well this was a DIFFERENT Bush.  Bush No. 1 was significantly less horrific than Bush No 2.  I even respected Bush No. 1 a little.

Quote
How does that translate into NH voting for Clinton TWICE! The first time could have been an anti-Bush vote BUT the second time they voted for Clinton by an even greater margin: 246,166 to 196,486.

Bush No. 1 screwed up -- he raised taxes.  NH residents recognized this.  When political leaders fail, free people boot them out.  Wyoming residents apparently did not understand this.

Quote
Here are the 2000 results from NH.
Bush/Browne 276,282
Gore/Nader 288,504

NH voters apparently got the same creepies that I did when Bush was running.  NH voters are pretty smart people.

Quote
There is a trend there in NH since 1988 that goes deeper than just hating Bushes.
If NH really is anti-big government, anti-socialism, anti-liberal
Then why has New Hampshire voted for big government, socialist, liberals since 1988?

Please.  Why did Wyoming vote for a big government liberal DEMOCRAT for governor, while NH voted for a libertarian-leaning Republican?

Quote
The above does not bode well for the Free State Porcupines who could earn some spite for some libertarian issues.

Compared to what?  The even greater spite we may experience when we introduce our social agenda to the right-wing Wyoming voters?
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 03, 2003, 07:36:58 pm
Hi Jenlee,

In many ways we are in the same boat outside of Del. which has little chance I'm moving a long way to, not as long as you, but leaving all that is dear to me behind.

I am so much in the NH camp that perhaps my thoughts are not really valid to you.  But perhaps I could put you in touch with Doug, from Alabama.  He was very much undecided before he came to the Getaway.  Did all the research, look at all the numbers, listen to all the stuff people were saying.  I found we became friends regardless.  I asked him when he got home to let me know what his choice was, pro or con.  Hey would still like him he's a good guy in my book.

Well he sent me a note then posted it.  He chose NH.

Perhaps he could give you another perspective.

Tell you what I will ask him to stop on by this thread to talk to you about why he made his decision.  Sure you can talk in private or on the thread if that is ok with you.

Will not ask him without your positve response so will await that.

Dave
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jenlee on July 03, 2003, 07:52:58 pm
Dave I would really appeciate that.

I know I wont be voting Alaska. That I know. Also I will not vote Idaho. So that leaves 8 states. S, Dakota for all its hmm beauty I seriously doubt I'll vote for either.
So it is pretty much between (no certain order here just naming names) Wyoming, New HAmpshire, Maine, N. Dakota, Montana and to be honest I haven't given much thought to Delaware or Vermont.

But I am getting a fair idea of which I will vote. 10 states and only one will win. Scary.

Hi Jenlee,

In many ways we are in the same boat outside of Del. which has little chance I'm moving a long way to, not as long as you, but leaving all that is dear to me behind.

I am so much in the NH camp that perhaps my thoughts are not really valid to you.  But perhaps I could put you in touch with Doug, from Alabama.  He was very much undecided before he came to the Getaway.  Did all the research, look at all the numbers, listen to all the stuff people were saying.  I found we became friends regardless.  I asked him when he got home to let me know what his choice was, pro or con.  Hey would still like him he's a good guy in my book.

Well he sent me a note then posted it.  He chose NH.

Perhaps he could give you another perspective.

Tell you what I will ask him to stop on by this thread to talk to you about why he made his decision.  Sure you can talk in private or on the thread if that is ok with you.

Will not ask him without your positve response so will await that.

Dave
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Stumpy on July 03, 2003, 08:00:37 pm
perhaps I could put you in touch with Doug, from Alabama.  He was very much undecided before he came to the Getaway.  Did all the research, look at all the numbers, listen to all the stuff people were saying.  I found we became friends regardless.  I asked him when he got home to let me know what his choice was, pro or con.  Hey would still like him he's a good guy in my book.

Well he sent me a note then posted it.  He chose NH.

Perhaps he could give you another perspective.


I would be happy to give my perspective. Like Dave said, I went to New Hampshire undecided.

Actually, if I were required to vote any time before halfway through the ESCAPE, I would have given WY my #1 vote.

BUT, the libertarian/live and let live attitude of the people of New Hampshire changed my mind.

I’ve posted the notes at: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2215 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2215)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jenlee on July 03, 2003, 08:07:08 pm
Thank you Doug

So far I am finding the easiest thing to do is decide on which state NOT to vote for. And out of 10 states that wasn't very easy. Altho as I have posted I have dropped 2 Alaska and Idaho, for sure and S. Dakota is pretty much out too.

And I do need to give Delaware and Vermont more of a look. But unless they have more to offer than hm oh say NH, then they too will join the NO pile. So 5 out of 10 is better than I thought I would do in this time frame.

Will go and check that link out. And hopefully soon I will have a clearer idea of what feels/seems/proves to me is in fact the best state.  Other than Alaska I mean  ;)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 03, 2003, 08:12:23 pm
Jen - why won't you put Alaska first?  I thought you said you thought it was the best state!  With the kind of voting system we're using, you can put it first even if you think it might not win.  When you vote, you rank all ten states, like this:

1. A
2. B
3. C
4. D
5. E
6. F
7. G
8. H
9. I
10. J

So if you think Alaska is best, you should put it first.  Then you can figure out what state you think is second best and put it second, and so on.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on July 03, 2003, 08:16:14 pm
Totally off subject but since I have started checking NH out and found the Great North Woods, this has gotten stuck in my mind and no in no way will it lead my descion.

Wasn't the Great North Woods the place Laura Ingalls Wilder started her books about? From where she was born/moved west from?

Like I said totally off subject but it is driving me nuts  :-[
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 03, 2003, 08:17:38 pm
Jenlee,

Scary is the perfect word.  I am so much into the NH folks and their supporters if we lose this election I will be crushed! :(  and uprooting our lives to move to a new and strange place, well we all must be a bit nuts.  Mostly because well I just think we have a chance here to like change history!  Wow the thought of creating a free state, wow me and you girl being a part of that, that rocks!  But I know that without the right people, statistics be damed, it will not happen!

And to be honest I hate the idea of leaving my friends and family.

So you didn't answer my guestion about sending Doug over to give you a less bias opinion, because I must admit I am a bit bias here!  He is a good man and honest too :)

Dave
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Stumpy on July 03, 2003, 08:27:33 pm
Have you visited any western states yet?

Sorry Zion. I guess I missed your question.

Yes, I have visited ALL of the western states. I particularly enjoyed WY.

I recommend New Hampshire because I am convinced that New Hampshire offers the Free State Project its best opportunity to enact legislation delivering LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on July 03, 2003, 08:49:47 pm
Doug

You have been to Alaska?  Now Alaskan is NOT western hehehehe it is North western  ;D



Have you visited any western states yet?

Sorry Zion. I guess I missed your question.

Yes, I have visited ALL of the western states. I particularly enjoyed WY.

I recommend New Hampshire because I am convinced that New Hampshire offers the Free State Project its best opportunity to enact legislation delivering LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME.

Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jenlee on July 03, 2003, 09:04:20 pm
Jason- Simple

Because if Alaska would win, it and us would loss. Too many people are afraid to move so far away. They think odd things about Alaska.

Alaska is an awesome state. It has more going for it than any other state in the union. There is more room for growth, to expand, to actually achieve freedom and not that long down the road.

BUT

But too many people will refuse to move to Alaska. Certain areas are very well settled. We have urban, we have rural, we have the bush. We have jobs. We have housing (granted they aren't building a lot now BUT there is room for it). If a person can't find what they want/need in Anchorage, there is the valley. Mat-Su Valley goes from just north of Eagle River/Chugiak  almost all the way to Denali north on Parks Highway, then northeast on Glen it goes past Eruka Lodge ALMOST all the way to Glenallen. That is a lot of land.

And I haven't even touched on the rest of the state.

They think it is just cold, miserable and dreary here. It isn't. In the winter, only the far north will get little to no sunlight. The rest of the state we do! here in the valley we get up to 8 hours of sunlight per day UNLESS it is cloudy/overcast. The same as any state in the lower 48.

They say it is too cold and snowy here.  This last year, Oklahoma and the east coast got a lot more than we did. A lot more. Cold? Exuse me but all the states eing considered gets cold. To what degree? Well except for maybe Idaho all the states are about equal in being JUST  as cold as Alaska is. Unless of course, unless you move to the very far north.

But see, people fear Alaska. Yes fear. They fear what they don't know/understand. And that is why I wont vote for the state I KNOW we would suceed in.

Jen - why won't you put Alaska first?  I thought you said you thought it was the best state!  With the kind of voting system we're using, you can put it first even if you think it might not win.  When you vote, you rank all ten states, like this:

1. A
2. B
3. C
4. D
5. E
6. F
7. G
8. H
9. I
10. J

So if you think Alaska is best, you should put it first.  Then you can figure out what state you think is second best and put it second, and so on.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 03, 2003, 09:15:57 pm
Jenlee,

To be honest with you.  (I'm not a politician) Alaska is 3rd on my list.  Know the Japaneze current keeps the coastal areas warm so to speak in the winter, but had serious problems with months of darkness!  Have learned that the darkness thing is not all over Alaska so it has gained points with me.  Hey if your going to move for freedom, whats a few thousand miles between freedom lovers :)

Dave
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jenlee on July 03, 2003, 09:16:30 pm
Oh and to make something very clear.

When I came to Alaska I didn't know one soul here. No family, no friends, noone.

I decided one day that if I wanted to go to Alaska, well I best not wait on someone come with me since I would have had a very long wait.

So one day I packed my car, said my goodbyes and drove off. And I was doing fine until my car broke down in Seattle. Want to talk about crowded? Go and visit Seattle, beautiful, but crowded.

So once I realized that it would cost me more to repair my car than it was worth, I jumped on a plane.

I had never been here before. I never knew one person who had been here.

But I read up on the state. I knew I needed to come here.

So after getting off the plane (12 years ago) I found I could breath. I found a world where it didn't matter if you didn't agree with every Tom, Dick and Harry. I found a wonderful, a beautiful open welcoming state that wanted, no required me to be who and what I should be.

And that people is what Alaska is about. Wanting/demanding/requiring you to be yourself.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jenlee on July 03, 2003, 09:29:09 pm
Dave, if you ever get the chance to visit Alaska (because I am pretty sure it wont win) please do. This is the most beautiful there is.

If you want to be able to go outside and see wildlife, here you can. If you want to see glaciers, here you can almost (it is advisable to NOT walk up on one, too dangerous) down in Portage there are some. Up near Ereuka Lodge there is one. Going to Valdez there is an awesome one. In fact there is glaciers you can't reach bv auto, foot. Planes are the only way.

If you want to see whales, Belugas comes right up the inlet. If you want to breath clean fresh air, be able to walk for miles and not see another human being, Alaska is the state. Also if you want to walk a few miles AND see people, Alaska is it as well. We have bikes trials that circle Anchorage. Then heads out of town. Goes right up Parks Highway. They are thinking about sending it south as well.

If you want to play baseball at night, here in the summer you wont even need lights.

If you want to ski, guess what? We have places to ski that mankind has not walked on for centuries. Ski down the mountain or across country you can. If you want real fish. Big fish, we have that. Deep sea fishing, little rivers where the salmon comes back to spawn.

Minnesota, the state with how many lakes? A mere 10,000 lakes. Here in Alaska we have lakes, streams, creeks, ponds that still has no names. We have enough room and if there isn't a name there already, you very well might be able to name your own road, creek, lake, pond or river. Where else could you have that much freedom to do that in? No where that is where.

If you ever decide you want to go to Hawaii, well guess what? Hawaii isn't that far and we have flights that goes there year round. Go over int he winter and come back with a good tan.

And yes you are right, a few 1000s miles is nothing to travel for freedom. I have done it once, all alone and can and yes will do it again.

See you in the free state. I will buy you a cup of coffee  :)

Jenlee,

To be honest with you.  (I'm not a politician) Alaska is 3rd on my list.  Know the Japaneze current keeps the coastal areas warm so to speak in the winter, but had serious problems with months of darkness!  Have learned that the darkness thing is not all over Alaska so it has gained points with me.  Hey if your going to move for freedom, whats a few thousand miles between freedom lovers :)

Dave
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 03, 2003, 09:31:34 pm
Good for you girl sometimes I think you just have to do what you feel is right.  Seems like you did that, good.  Also think your last post you were a little testy...please no need for that honest, at least not with me.  Hope to see you in the free state and what can I say hope it is NH!

Bye now have to get off this computer before my eyes cross, hello real world!

Dave
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Penfist on July 03, 2003, 09:39:22 pm
I'll buy you a cup of coffee too Jenlee :) To make up for the one you buy Dave.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jenlee on July 03, 2003, 09:39:32 pm
I'm sorry Dave if you felt I was being testy. I wasn't or at least that wasn't my intent. Guess I am a little sore with the way so many thinks of this beautiful state. I truly didn't mean to come across as testy or anything else negative.

And well I will be voting NH as well. So see you there and I will still buy you a cup of coffee (I don't drink otherwise)

Have a good evening Dave and have fun in the real world  :)

Good for you girl sometimes I think you just have to do what you feel is right.  Seems like you did that, good.  Also think your last post you were a little testy...please no need for that honest, at least not with me.  Hope to see you in the free state and what can I say hope it is NH!

Bye now have to get off this computer before my eyes cross, hello real world!

Dave
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jenlee on July 03, 2003, 09:40:31 pm
Your on!


Man oh man NH or any state best watch out for us  ;)

I'll buy you a cup of coffee too Jenlee :) To make up for the one you buy Dave.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on July 03, 2003, 10:04:15 pm
Wasn't the Great North Woods the place Laura Ingalls Wilder started her books about? From where she was born/moved west from?

Like I said totally off subject but it is driving me nuts  :-[

Nope. Wrong place. I knew it wasn't NH, but couldn't remember where so I just asked my daughter. "Little House in the Big Woods" took place in Wisconsin.

The Great North Woods are beautiful and secluded, though. We have lots of scenery photos from Escape 2 NH that should be posted on the web soon.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on July 03, 2003, 10:11:34 pm
Oh darn!!! And here I was hoping to get inspiration from her place of birth  ;)

lol Thank you Michelle. Wisconsin? Wow!  I sure didn't remember that state being the one. Learn something new every day.  Please, thank your daughter for me.

Can't wait for the pics to be put up. Wish I had the time next week and a half to drive up there since I will be in the lower 48. But going on family business and very little time.



Wasn't the Great North Woods the place Laura Ingalls Wilder started her books about? From where she was born/moved west from?

Like I said totally off subject but it is driving me nuts  :-[

Nope. Wrong place. I knew it wasn't NH, but couldn't remember where so I just asked my daughter. "Little House in the Big Woods" took place in Wisconsin.

The Great North Woods are beautiful and secluded, though. We have lots of scenery photos from Escape 2 NH that should be posted on the web soon.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Godmachine on July 04, 2003, 04:08:32 am
I just finished the "101 Reasons to Vote NH" acrobat article. I have to say, NH gets my vote. Of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that a female that I have extremely strong feelings for lives there...
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Stumpy on July 04, 2003, 09:10:34 am
Doug

You have been to Alaska?  Now Alaskan is NOT western hehehehe it is North western  ;D

Hi Jenlee,
Yes, my wife and I spent a week in your beautiful state a few years back. We were driving beside the Turnagain Arm when we saw a weird water flow. We climbed one of the mountains there in the Chugach and looked down on the water. The water was literally teeming with Baluga whales. It was one of the most incredible things I have ever seen.

While searching for another mountain to climb, we had our car stopped and were looking over a map. My wife pointed to my left. I looked out the left window to see a HUGE moose grazing about 10 feet away. I have many more stories, but I won’t bore you.

I also noticed the “live and let live” attitude of the Alaskans and it is very similar to the attitude of the people of New Hampshire. This is another reason why I believe the people of New Hampshire will welcome the Free State Project and view it’s members as allies in the struggle to downsize government.
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 04, 2003, 09:21:07 am
Jenlee,

My fault on the testy thing.  To be honest with you I am still not right from the Getaway.  I was always one of the last ot bed, or should I say tent :), and amoung the first to rise.  It was so exciting meeting all those porcupines for real that I just didn't want to miss anything.

The talent, the intelligence, and the committment I saw from those porcupines, let me tell you girl all I can say is porcupines ROCK!

Your on for that cup of coffee, thanks!  Would love to hear about your adventures in Alaska, and your thoughts and ideas on creating the free state.

From what I have been reading here, sounds like you will be drinking a lot of coffee in NH. :)

Dave
Title: NH's Gun Laws Less Restrictive Than VT?
Post by: Michelle on July 04, 2003, 11:18:04 am
This isn't really my area of expertise, but this was the position of Sam Cohen, representative of the Gun Owners of New Hampshire who approached me at Escape to NH to tell me that I needed to change this point on my 101 Reasons to Vote NH to indicate that NH's gun laws are now actually less restrictive than VT's following the passage of HB415 specifically, but also HB766.

I have not edited 101 Reasons, but thought I should document here what he told me.

While most of us are familiar with Vermont Carry, what is less well known is that local municipalities in VT are allowed to pass their own local ordinances restricting gun rights. Apparently, places like Burlington have done this. I'm not sure to what degree.

Well - that is absolutely not allowed in New Hampshire. CCW licenses are given on a "shall issue" basis and from the GO-NH site "HB415 clarifies existing state law that says that only the New Hampshire legislature - NOT towns and cities - can regulate firearms." HB415 was necessary to prevent "the emergence of widely varying town laws which infringe upon the rights of gun owners and can make you a criminal as you travel from one locality to another going about your usual business."

Relevant Excerpt From HB 415

State Jurisdiction

159:26 Firearms and Ammunition; Authority of the State.

I. To the extent consistent with federal law, the state of New Hampshire shall have authority and jurisdiction over the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, or firearms supplies in the state. Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, no ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision may regulate the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, or firearms supplies in the state. Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting a political subdivision's right to adopt zoning ordinances for the purpose of regulating firearms businesses in the same manner as other businesses or to take any action allowed under RSA 207.59.

Relevant excerpt from HB766

159:6 License to Carry.

I. The selectmen of a town or the mayor or chief of police of a city or some full-time police officer designated by them respectively, upon application of any resident of such town or city, or the director of state police, or some person designated by such director, upon application of a nonresident, shall issue a license to such applicant authorizing the applicant to carry a loaded pistol or revolver in this state for not less than 4 years from the date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property or has any proper purpose, and that the applicant is a suitable person to be licensed. Hunting, target shooting, or self-defense shall be considered a proper purpose. The license shall be valid for all allowable purposes regardless of the purpose for which it was originally issued. The license shall be in duplicate and shall bear the name, address, description, and signature of the licensee. The original shall be delivered to the licensee and the duplicate shall be preserved by the people issuing the same for 4 years. When required, license renewal shall take place within the month of the fourth anniversary of the license holder's date of birth following the date of issuance. The license shall be issued within 14 days after application, and, if such application is denied, the reason for such denial shall be stated in writing, the original of which such writing shall be delivered to the applicant, and a copy kept in the office of the person to whom the application was made. The fee for licenses issued to residents of the state shall be $10, which fee shall be for the use of the law enforcement department of the town granting said licenses; the fee for licenses granted to out-of-state residents shall be $20, which fee shall be for the use of the state. The director of state police is hereby authorized and directed to prepare forms for the licenses required under this chapter and forms for the application for such licenses and to supply the same to officials of the cities and towns authorized to issue the licenses. No other forms shall be used by officials of cities and towns. The cost of the forms shall be paid out of the fees received from nonresident licenses.

II. No photograph or fingerprint shall be required or used as a basis to grant, deny, or renew a license to carry for a resident or nonresident, unless requested by the applicant.

(II. is the new part, again, clarifying what was implied in the law but not followed by some local municipalities)

Thoughts?
Title: Re:NH's Gun Laws Less Restrictive Than VT?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 04, 2003, 11:44:42 am
This is interesting; I didn't realize that VT allowed municipalities to develop restrictive ordinances.  What we really need to do is to look at all the candidate states and see which ones allow municipalities to make regulations on guns stricter than state law.  Anyone know of any sources for this?
Title: FreeStateNH.com updated
Post by: jgmaynard on July 04, 2003, 02:56:44 pm
Hi all:

I have just updated FreeStateNH.com (http://www.freestatenh.com) with media articles and archives from the Escape to NH.

More updates coming sonn! :)

JM
Title: Re:FreeStateNH.com now available!
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 04, 2003, 03:01:17 pm
FreeStateNH.com now available!

Are you excited about the Free State Project? Have you heard all the wonderful things about New Hampshire, which makes the ?Live Free or Die? state the best choice for the Free State Project? Maybe you have lost track of all the different pages, and wished they were all together in one place for easy access. You've got your wish!
At http://www.freestatenh.com, you now have a central hub for all FSP-NH pages, as well as Free State Project links, and New Hampshire information and data. As time goes on, the site will be updated with more New Hampshire news and information.
For porcupines looking to head the the Escape to New Hampshire trip, www.freestatenh.com offers directions from five different areas, including directions from Vermont, Massachusetts and Maine. The site also features the HOT new ?101 Reasons to vote for New Hampshire? list by Michelle Dumas.
It's sister site, http://www.freestatenhlive.com, has received hundreds of visitors from around the country, and is already one of the highest rated sites for New Hampshire webcams on Yahoo, AOL, Google and more!
Visit http://www.freestatenh.com and explore some of the many reasons to choose New Hampshire as the best choice for the Free State.


Now who is doing the copying?    ;)
Title: Re:FreeStateNH.com now available!
Post by: jgmaynard on July 04, 2003, 03:35:50 pm
What? Idaho Free State.com? This one was up first.... Check the original date... June 13th.

So, I'd say there's a chance Idaho supporters are copying, but the URL name is not really a great stretch of imagination.... ;) I'm sure Idaho could have come up with it on their own. :D Of course, there doesn't actually seem to BE anything at that address.... The post about it doesn't mention another address....

JM
Title: Re:FreeStateNH.com now available!
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 04, 2003, 05:15:35 pm
What? Idaho Free State.com? This one was up first.... Check the original date... June 13th.

So, I'd say there's a chance Idaho supporters are copying, but the URL name is not really a great stretch of imagination.... ;) I'm sure Idaho could have come up with it on their own. :D Of course, there doesn't actually seem to BE anything at that address.... The post about it doesn't mention another address....

JM
Yes please check the dates, they idea was talked about last year.
Title: Re:FreeStateNH.com now available!
Post by: jgmaynard on July 04, 2003, 06:32:01 pm
Sorry if i missed them talking about their site a year ago.... I don't have time to spy on other state's forums. :D

JM
Title: Re:NH's Gun Laws Less Restrictive Than VT?
Post by: cbisquit on July 04, 2003, 06:37:36 pm
This is interesting; I didn't realize that VT allowed municipalities to develop restrictive ordinances.  What we really need to do is to look at all the candidate states and see which ones allow municipalities to make regulations on guns stricter than state law.  Anyone know of any sources for this?
If you're not too averse to using data from enemy camp I found this report on gun control laws, including info on litigation and municipality restrictions. Just remember these people like gun control so bad=good for our purposes. Gun Control in the United States (http://www.soros.org/crime/Chart2.pdf)
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: jgmaynard on July 04, 2003, 06:55:13 pm
That's funny Dave, I still haven't quite recovered from the Escape yet, either. Who needs sleep when you can discuss politics in a hot tub? ;)

Did you hear the 101 reasons to choose New Hampshire (http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-Vote-NH.pdf) has now been downloaded well over 5,000 times?!?!?!?

I'm SOOO proud of Michelle! :D

JM
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: Rearden on July 04, 2003, 07:00:08 pm
For all its amazing variety of terrain and climate, New Hampshire is amazingly compact.  You can drive the state from east to west in two hours, and from North to South in four.

This makes a huge difference when running campaigns.
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jgmaynard on July 05, 2003, 12:12:30 am
COOL! A moose! :OD

On the Wednesday of the Escape, I met Bruce and Devera Morgan and their two kids for a hike up mount Monadnock in Dublin, NH. On the way up the trail, we saw a beautiful deer having lunch just a few feet off the side of the trail. It was amazing.

JM
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on July 05, 2003, 02:45:39 am
In my backyard, I have this little dent and a momma moose has her babies there every year. I have moose that comes into my yard to clean up my garden for me. I can go down the streets of Anchorage and see wild moose.
We also have caribou, elk, dali sheep, wolves, bears and more here. All you can see with out having to go to a zoo or travel too far from where you live. Unless of course you want to see a polar bear, tha is different. For that you either go to the zoo or north.

And Keith I am never bored with stories from people who have been here. Gives me a different outlook on my chosen state.

COOL! A moose! :OD

On the Wednesday of the Escape, I met Bruce and Devera Morgan and their two kids for a hike up mount Monadnock in Dublin, NH. On the way up the trail, we saw a beautiful deer having lunch just a few feet off the side of the trail. It was amazing.

JM
Title: Re:Why the FSP should choose New Hampshire
Post by: BobW on July 05, 2003, 03:14:42 am
Hi Rtomasso,

Re # 33;

I completely support the principle you bring up.  A concentration of Porcupines on alert is the route to go.

Now, my experience shows political activists gravitate to state capitols and large metro centers.

Other than for local and state specific political issues, here is the New Hampshire area of operations:  Concord, Manchester, Boston.  Here is the Wyoming area of operations:  Casper, Cheyenne, Denver.

20,000 is far too small a pool to draw from to handle Boston.

I was not the first to mention it here recently; Radar was and my compliments to him; New Hampshire is smack in the middle of the "Eastern Establishment".

The Eastern Establishment is geometrically stronger than mentioned here at this forum.

At some point, this must be discussed amongst yourselves.

BobW
Title: Re:101 Reasons to Vote for NH
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 05, 2003, 08:45:15 am
Politics in a hot tub, with good people works for me my friend! ;D

Have been thinking one of my favorite reasons for knowing NH is our last best hope:

The New Hampshire's governorship is the weakest of all the states due to our unique, constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances against the power of the governor.  The Executive Council holds the distinction of being the first and the last of its kind in the nation.  It is a vestige of the Colonial era and a public reminder of the continuing indication of the basic distrust Granite State citizens have for dictatorial governnment.

Power corrupts!  Even freedom loving porcupines can get caught up in the power game.  Great way to limit the power of the governor.  I say the weaker the government, the better for FREEDOM!

Keep the faith my friend!

Dave
Title: Re:NH's Gun Laws Less Restrictive Than VT?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 05, 2003, 10:36:22 am
What I don't like about the Soros measure is that it doesn't tell us what's being measured at all.  There are no categories, and we don't even know what the numbers mean.  I also think they might well have fudged the numbers to try to make low-crime states look as if they have more gun control than they really do.  We actually used the Soros measures at one time, but eventually discarded them as suspicious.
Title: Why I Chose New Hampshire
Post by: robmayn on July 06, 2003, 05:50:00 pm
When I first heard of the FSP, I started out as a Vermont
supporter.  (My home state)  The notion of moving a number of freedom lovers into one state and trying to create a libertarian model was not new to me.  A few of us Vermont libertarians had been throwing around this idea for over a decade.  (We never actually acted on it)  The example of what the socialists did here in Vermont was a constant reminder that, not only could it be done, but how to do it.  In those days, though my heart was with Vermont, my head was always with New Hampshire.
I was not alone in this assessment among Vermont libertarians. (Some actually made the move)

In the last few years, I had started to  become convinced
that Vermont might actually be the better choice.  There was a strong and growing anti-government grassroots movement  that made progress at the legislative level in both the 1998 and 2000 elections.  I was convinced that Vermont was finally on the path away from socialism.  At the same time, New Hampshire had passed the Claremont education funding decision and elected a Democratic Governor.  There was a lot of talk in the air of them passing an income tax.  This led me to conclude that New Hampshire was going down the migration induced path toward socialism that Vermont had already traveled.

The aftermath of the 2002 elections has now convinced me that my assesment was wrong.  New Hampshire seems to have resumed its "Live Free or Die" approach to politics, while Vermont's political leadership has killed off a mini-tax revolt with a pseudo-education reform bill that promises to be worse than the original.

The next question that naturally comes up is "What about the other states?"  If my goal was to drop out of politics and just be left alone (a decision that is quite appealing to me) I would probably choose Alaska or Wyoming.  I am not one of those who are worried about the job situation in Wyoming, as I live a very frugal lifestyle and could get by with a small amount of income.
My concern in regards to these states lies elsewhere and is related to the goal of creatig a free state rather than personally disappearing.

First of all, there is the issue of federal dependancy.  I have been involved in the property rights movement for quite a few years. (I am currently the President of Citizens for Property Rights, here in Vermont, which is associated with a larger nationwide network of property rights groups)  Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that the property rights situation in many western states is the most difficult to combat.  In a number of these states, the federal goverment owns 50% or more of all the land in the state.  To compound the issue, the most desireable land is often under federal control.  Places like Yellowstone National Park are
even under consideration from UN supporters to be desiginated as Global Heritage Sites.  I would rather battle the local progressives here in Vermont, as organized as they are, than try and tackle the global environmental movement.  Couple the federally owned land problem with the fact that these states typically recieve more in federal aide than they pay in taxes and the percentage of the workforce that is employed by the federal government and you do not have a recipie for independence from federal control.  Some have said that the feds would be more likely to ignore us in states like Wyoming.  On the contrary, when the feds own about half of the land in the state, they have a MUCH bigger stake in keeping control over such states.

Another issue is the state constitutions of most western states.  As Jason pointed out, they are products of the 19th Century Industrial Age, whereas the Constitutions of states like Vermont and New Hampshire are products of the 18th Century.  I do think that Jason was being a little kind when he said that each has its pros and cons.
By the time of the Industrial Age, when many of the western states constitutions were written, there was a marked shift in political philosophy away from the relatively libertarian views of the founding generation.  I really do not see any pros in the Western states' constitutions.  Sure they allow for referendum and initiative as a way of appearing democratic, but most functions of government are highly concentrated in the hands of the state, making real local democracy illusionary.  State constitutions are a big issue for me, as it is MUCH easier to change laws than it is to change the constitution.  In my mind, Vermont and New Hampshire have the most libertarian oriented constitutions of any of the states being considered.  Neither would need to be ammended to seperate school and state, or to assert
independence from the feds.  Of course, the meaning of these constitutions have been perverted, as has been pointed out in various discussions, but the original intent is clear.  With many of the other states, no creative reinterpretation is needed, as the original intent is clearly statist.

The final issue I want to address is that of organizing in a state once we get there.  Although I like free open spaces, such is not conducive to organizing a political movement.  This was a BIG factor in the progressives choosing Vermont and was a big factor why I hung to Vermont.  The short driving distance between population centers and the town meeting style heritage makes organizing a movement easier.  The same can be said for New Hampshire.  We will enter the chosen state as outsiders in regards to the establishment, just as the progressives did here in Vermont.  Eventually we will have to have a media pressence, but that will take time.  We need to hit the ground running, which means numerous issue oriented meetings all over the state on as many issues as we can drum up support for.  This has to happen year in and year out, not just during an election cycle.  When the election comes, we merely plug our candidates into a perpetual campaign.  There is also the factor of how many local pro-freedom issue oriented groups are there already organized that we can plug into.  New Hampshire seems to have a clear lead in this area with numerous anti tax groups all over the state and a variety of other groups.  Wyoming, on the other hand, does not even have a State Policy Network free market think tank.  As unorganized as the pro-liberty movement is here in Vermont (when compared to New Hampshire), we do have a SPN free market think tank. (The Ethan Allen Institute)  Finally in regards to organizing, I must tip my hat to the New Hampshire FSP members.  (I do so with a bit of jealousy that we could not match that effort here in Vermont over the years)

As a parting comment, I thought that I would address the population and migration issue.  Needless to say, I am not overly concerned with theses issues.  The organization factors that I cited mitigate the population issue and the migration issue works both ways.  As I have said before in previous posts, a lot of the migration to New Hampshire is from people who are pro-liberty.  In some instances, I know this for a fact, as many of our pro-liberty activists here in Vermont have moved there over the years.
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: jgmaynard on July 06, 2003, 10:45:04 pm
Hampton Beach is this week's FreeStateNHLIVE (http://www.freestatenhlive.com) hot spot of the week.

From http://www.hampton.lib.nh.us/hampton/history/holman/atlantic.htm:

"It is easy to get to Hampton Beach, and easy to find accommodations there, and those of the best. Hampton is a typical New England town, still rich in the traditions of its early English settlers. It is progressive in the sense of having modern comforts, but it has not yet progressed, nor does it desire to progress, to the point of regarding those who visit it as strangers to whom it owes no more than polite formality and paid service. Hampton appreciates its visitors, and seeks to do all in its power to welcome them and make them feel at home, as well as to contribute to their entertainment while they stay."

That is just one of the reasons Hampton Beach is this week's NH hot spot of the week.
Visit Free State NH LIVE!!! (http://www.freestatenhlive.com) for more information on this wonderful taste of the Atlantic ocean lapping the shores of the Live Free or Die state.

JM
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: jenlee on July 06, 2003, 10:47:00 pm
Overkill? Seems like it, to me.
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: Michelle on July 06, 2003, 11:02:35 pm
Overkill? Seems like it, to me.

Why? We learned early on that many people from other parts of the country had a perception of New Hampshire that was no where near reality (honestly! I got so tired of trying to explain that all of NH is not a big city). By promoting links to various NH webcams and photos, Jim is trying to give people a better idea of what the state is like and the diversity it offers. It seems reasonable to me, and I certainly admire the extraordinary personal time he has put into projects like FreeStateNHLIVE.
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: jenlee on July 06, 2003, 11:21:48 pm
I can understand that Michelle after all I have read plenty of posts downing Alaska and none to speak of has ever been to my state. So they have no idea what Alaska is kind, how the people are, etc.

And while it is great to see so much enthusiasm for a  state but sometimes it is hard to see the forest for all the trees. And thread after thread after thread of nothing but NH, well I am starting to loose sight of the forest due to so many trees in the way.

Overkill? Seems like it, to me.

Why? We learned early on that many people from other parts of the country had a perception of New Hampshire that was no where near reality (honestly! I got so tired of trying to explain that all of NH is not a big city). By promoting links to various NH webcams and photos, Jim is trying to give people a better idea of what the state is like and the diversity it offers. It seems reasonable to me, and I certainly admire the extraordinary personal time he has put into projects like FreeStateNHLIVE.
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: RhythmStar on July 06, 2003, 11:38:11 pm
I think this is just a case of NH political activist culture in action.   These folks seem not only not to mind politics, they actually revel in it!

:)

RS
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: jenlee on July 06, 2003, 11:44:00 pm
Personally RS I think it is great. Now if only NH was the selected state I would say post away. But it isn't. And there is no absolute guarantee it will be.

So it would be nice to see other states as well.  But it is a little hard to see any other states when so many NH threads are going on and keeps getting bumped up (which is cool with me since I do look for others, but still that is a hassle sometimes when you are short on time) and other states keeps getting put ont he bottom of the pile, so to speak.
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: Michelle on July 07, 2003, 06:34:58 am
Personally RS I think it is great. Now if only NH was the selected state I would say post away. But it isn't. And there is no absolute guarantee it will be.

I actually wish more of the states had taken such an interest in the project. Alaska, for example, has interested me from the start. We've always planned to take an RV trip there, but have never quite been able to afford it. So I know a little from all the research I've done for this future trip, but I think it would have have really helped AKs "image" in the FSP if someone who lives there had spent time putting together information like Jim has put together here about NH. My neighbor is leaving today for the annual one-month trip he takes to AK. You can bet I'll be grilling him for info when he gets back  :)

Quote
But it is a little hard to see any other states when so many NH threads are going on and keeps getting bumped up (which is cool with me since I do look for others, but still that is a hassle sometimes when you are short on time) and other states keeps getting put ont he bottom of the pile, so to speak.

There is very little here besides posts about NH and WY. That isn't really the fault of either NH or WY, though. I actually had to chuckle at your comment a bit, because from our (NH) perspective it seems that any time something good is reported about NH - like the meeting and welcome from our governor - there is a (maybe? most likely?) intentional effort to bury that thread with posts about WY so that nobody ever sees it.

Realize, I'm not chuckling over your frustration. I can understand that and sympathize with it. I just think the difference in perspective is a little funny. It is equally frustrating to me to try and report on something good that the membership should know about and then have it buried before anyone can see it.
Title: Re:Why I Chose New Hampshire
Post by: jgmaynard on July 07, 2003, 09:50:35 am
Hi Robert:

It is wonderful to have you as a supporter. I know the hard work you and Hardy, et al. have done for the cause of Liberty in Vermont.
Vermont is a really beautiful state, I lived there for a year, and took summer courses at Bennington in 1986.
There is a lot to be proud of in Vermont, including Civil Unions, the lack of many marriage laws, the idea that gun control means keeping both hands on the weapon while firing ;) , it's high tech industries, etc. etc.
But there just aren't enough liberty lovers, yet, to make Vermont work.
New Hampshire seems to be the place to start - We already have at least one FSP member in the state house, the largest % of FSP members, by far, of any other state, and a friend in the Governor's office.
The liberal migration to Vermont shows this idea can work; but we need to strike where our opponents are the weakest, and are offering us the most help. Right now, that is New Hampshire. But I hope one day soon, we will see both our great states prospering under the flag of Liberty.

JM
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 07, 2003, 01:01:58 pm
Jenlee, I also understand your frustration.  I really wish more of the people who support other states would post.  I'm hopefull for a fair election based on all the variables, but if you had the time, (no one does really) and could see some of the post awhile back!

Some, having never been there, were painting NH as a statist haven, nothing more than a Mass west!  Now after being there I know this is not true.

I think Alaska suffers from many misconceptions too.  Actually early on I ruled her  out simply, because I didn't want to spend 3 months in darkness. :)

Well I have found out differently and actually think Alaska is a beautiful state and has much to offer the FSP, and she has gain much ground in my thinking.
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: RhythmStar on July 07, 2003, 01:38:49 pm
FWIW, I think Alaska may overtake Wyoming as my 2nd choice.  I'm a big outdoor sports nut... fishing, hunting that sort of thing.   In AK, I would be in a literal paradise, at least until winter hit.  :)

I favor NH purely for political and economic reasons.  Also, having been in the TV and music business, I see the enormous media leverage that FSP involvement in New Hampshire primaries will provide.  That cannot be bought and would do a lot to spread the word about freedom.   Rather than seceed from the US, I'd really like to see a political rebirth of freedom-oriented politics in this country.  New Hampshire, as one of the original states, seems like a logical place to start that.

RS
Title: Re:Why I Chose New Hampshire
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 07, 2003, 02:21:47 pm
I was just reading a book entitled, "Celebrate the States (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1166;start=msg15804#msg15804) on New Hampshire.

It stated that in New Hampshire, schools do not have kindergarten!  Wow!  That is really a postive point, this ought to be touted more often.  From a Californian who sees not only kindergarten and pre-school being subsidized by taxpayers, but now California is heavily pushing a new program that seems to want to install state-sponsored potty-training;  I am really impressed by this news.  I know that in a few of our states, like Alaska and Idaho, kids are not required to even go to kindergarten, but to actually not even have the program sounds pretty good to me!
41
Title: Re:Why I Chose New Hampshire
Post by: Karl on July 07, 2003, 02:37:50 pm
It stated that in New Hampshire, schools do not have kindergarten!  Wow!  That is really a postive point, this ought to be touted more often.  From a Californian who sees not only kindergarten and pre-school being subsidized by taxpayers, but now California is heavily pushing a new program that seems to want to install state-sponsored potty-training;  I am really impressed by this news.  I know that in a few of our states, like Alaska and Idaho, kids are not required to even go to kindergarten, but to actually not even have the program sounds pretty good to me!

I think NH is the only state in the nation not to mandate kindergarten, but most NH school districts have chosen to have optional kindergarten programs.
Title: Re:Why I Chose New Hampshire
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 07, 2003, 03:58:33 pm
I think NH is the only state in the nation not to mandate kindergarten, but most NH school districts have chosen to have optional kindergarten programs.
I just checked that, nope, see here: More and other criteria to weigh states with (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=247;start=165)  Still, it is pretty impressive to me that NH does not mandate kindergarten, how many school-districts 'opt-out'?
70
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: jenlee on July 07, 2003, 07:04:18 pm
Quote
New Hampshire, as one of the original states, seems like a logical place to start that.

Sorry RS but it should not matter whether the state selected was the first state created or the last state. All that should matter should be which state can we succeed in.

And Alaska is that state. Too bad so many fear Alaska.
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: Radar on July 07, 2003, 10:08:40 pm
Hopefully that site won't spread misinformation like many New Hampshire supporters have been doing on this board regarding how libertarian the state is, the ease of promoting our agenda, etc.  And hopefully they won't badmouth Wyoming or other western states.
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: jenlee on July 07, 2003, 10:44:04 pm
Quote
In AK, I would be in a literal paradise, at least until winter hit.  


Sorry RS forgot to post this earlier.

Unless you absolutely hate the cold and there is no winter activities you enjoy, then you would find that Alaska is very people friendly in the winter.

There is tons to do here year round.

Skiing, mountain, cross country, ice fishing, ice skating, mountain climbing (gotta be careful tho). Walking/jogging. Dancing. And there is more but I am sick and can't think of more.

But unless you never go outside in the winter, you would love it up here then too. NH gets pretty much the same type of weather as Alaska does. Last winter the east coast got more snow than we did.

Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 07, 2003, 10:50:08 pm
I'm watching Sen. John Edwards D-North Carolina is speaking on C-Span right now at a local town meeting in New Hampshire.

He is actively bragging that his big government proposals are much larger and draconian than George Bush's big government proposals.

--Plenty of cheers and rousing applause so far, I hope we can bring people to their feet and bring out the tears like he can, wow, hardly a sentence spoken without a lie, and he's well-received.
I'm waiting to see if any small government people in the audience try to stump him...


221
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 07, 2003, 11:24:02 pm
I'm watching Sen. John Edwards D-North Carolina is speaking on C-Span right now at a local town meeting in New Hampshire.

I'm waiting to see if any small government people in the audience try to stump him...

Ah ha!

Someone just asked about medical marijuana!  Hooray! He said he would form a committee to study the issue, (question evaded).  --answer accepted thankfully.
226
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 07, 2003, 11:34:32 pm
Quote
I'm watching Sen. John Edwards D-North Carolina is speaking on C-Span right now at a local town meeting in New Hampshire.

Someone just asked Sen. Edwards what he was going to do to help 'alleviate the property tax burden in New Hampshire if he was elected'!

His response?  "we need to promote responsibility... you wouldn't have such a high tax burden if there was more corporate responsibility... George Bush supports the wealthy interests, I want to support the American people".

--Loud cheers and applause.


If you take an average group from anywhere in the country and get a typical high-profile, persuasive elected statist before them, a similar reaction would probably happen there too,  I just wanted to point-out that these people from anytown, USA where actually from New Hampshire, a.k.a., "most Libertarian place in America".

235
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: Karl on July 07, 2003, 11:53:24 pm
If you take an average group from anywhere in the country and get a typical high-profile, persuasive elected statist before them, a similar reaction would probably happen there too,  I just wanted to point-out that these people from anytown, USA where actually from New Hampshire, a.k.a., "most Libertarian place in America".

I wonder how many of his own people were in the audience?  A half dozen operatives in the audience could whip a crowd into applause rather easily simply by initiating the applause.  Not to say, of course, that a unthinking audience wasn't fully capable of doing it themselves...
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: Mike Lorrey on July 08, 2003, 10:43:10 am
Hopefully that site won't spread misinformation like many New Hampshire supporters have been doing on this board regarding how libertarian the state is, the ease of promoting our agenda, etc.  And hopefully they won't badmouth Wyoming or other western states.

Have you been able to demonstrate in any factual way that what we say about how libertarian the state is and the ease of promoting our agenda here has been in any way false? No, you haven't. Please apologize for declaring it to be misinformation.

We NHerites deal in facts. We don't make unsupported declarations (like claiming WY is the "most libertarian state") especially when there is evidence to the contrary.

No state is perfect. If Wyoming is so libertarian, then it must not really NEED the FSP people to go there. We in NH readily admit that we are nowhere near the end goal. We only say that we are furthest down the road, and this opinion has been confirmed by every FSP member from other states who has taken the time to actually visit New Hampshire and check it out.

There is still a long way to go, but going backward to go less far down another road is not very progress oriented. Every state has its unique problems with statist laws and people of various sorts, Wyoming especially. It is only fair that we all promote what is great about our state in a factual way and let the chips fall where they may.

Playing mudslinging tactics is really a disservice to Wyoming, because people involved in the FSP are the types who really are turned off by the dirty politics typical in the statist parts of the country. NH citizens are the same way, which is why they elected a governor who didn't engage in dirty politics when his opponents did.
Title: Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: Rich T. on July 10, 2003, 11:52:36 am
Hello Porcupines,

I had a meeting with a member of the NH State Legislature today, talking about Escape to NH and the progress the FSP has been making and all that good stuff. At the end of the meeting, he signed on as a member to the FSP! (not as a Friend, but a Member). He wants to stay anonymous for now, but that may change after the vote results are announced. So that means we now have at least 2 Porcupines in the NH House.

I'll be on the radio this afternoon to talk about Escape and the FSP vote, I'll also try to mention this in the time given.

-Rich

PS. A few of you do know who he is, please respect his wishes and refrain from referring to him by name in any emails.
Title: Re:FreeStateNHLIVE!!! Hot Spot of the Week
Post by: Rich T. on July 10, 2003, 11:56:27 am
FreeStateNHLIVE.com on the air!

New Hampshire supporters of the Free State Project are proud to announce the unveiling of “FreeStateNHLive.com”. The web site, located at http://www.freestatenhlive.com , offers web-cams from around the “Live Free or Die” state. From the wind-swept heights of Mt. Washington, to the Atlantic shore at Hampton Beach, FreeStateNHLive offers a guided tour of one of the most beautiful places on Earth, New Hampshire.
   In addition to live web-cams, the site also offers a page of original New Hampshire photographs taken by FSP members, and many fun filled facts about the state.
   Treat yourself to a free tour of one of the freest, most beautiful places anywhere, New Hampshire, at http://www.freestatenhlive.com .

Great site. I'll be sending you a lot of pics of Nashua soon.
Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 10, 2003, 11:56:30 am
Kudos, Rich!
Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: Penfist on July 10, 2003, 11:59:05 am
Which of you two brothers is the older one? Is it Jason, or Rich that is senior?
Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: Stumpy on July 10, 2003, 12:01:33 pm
Did you also notice the similarity in looks and mannerisms?

It is spooky.
Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: JonM on July 10, 2003, 12:02:33 pm
I'll be on the radio this afternoon to talk about Escape and the FSP vote, I'll also try to mention this in the time given.

What station?
Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: Penfist on July 10, 2003, 12:05:58 pm
Which of you two brothers is the older one? Is it Jason, or Rich that is senior?

I think they are twins. I sat near one of them at an LPNH meeting the other night, but I honestly cannot say which it was...

At least they aren't EVIL twins :)
Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: Penfist on July 10, 2003, 12:11:11 pm
And will an Internet feed be available?
Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: Michelle on July 10, 2003, 01:08:13 pm
What station?

AM 1590 sometime between 3-4.

Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: Stumpy on July 10, 2003, 01:26:39 pm
What station?

AM 1590 sometime between 3-4.



I guess you mean 1590 out of Boston?

If so, listen online at  www.tiger1590.com
Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: jgmaynard on July 10, 2003, 01:50:32 pm
That's the station..... Tune in, folks!

JM
Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: JonM on July 10, 2003, 02:14:07 pm
Pretty liberty oriented topic on the show so far.  Halfway through.

Got a FSP update mention at the bump.  Will be in the last segment.
Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: Michelle on July 10, 2003, 02:50:11 pm
LOL Rich  :D

You're just recruiting everyone!

For anyone who missed it, Rich just got the show's host to say on the air that he was signing up before August 15.

Great job!
Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: pghpat26 on July 10, 2003, 03:24:04 pm
Will we be able to hear that piece?
Title: Re:Another NH Legislator joins the FSP
Post by: EMOR on July 10, 2003, 05:33:56 pm