Free State Project Forum

New Hampshire -- The "Live Free or Die" State => NH Information and News => Topic started by: JasonPSorens on July 28, 2014, 12:24:55 pm

Title: NH is a bit different
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 28, 2014, 12:24:55 pm
NH is a bit different.

The other day, I met a guy in my apartment complex's elevator who was open carrying. Friendly guy, but didn't recognize him as a Free Stater or libertarian activist.

At our new rental house, we have a neighbor with a "Free Snowden" sign out front. Again, not Free Staters or Pre-Staters so far as I know.

Two days ago, I was driving behind a car with a bumper sticker that said, "Every Tax and Regulation Takes Away Someone's Freedom."

And this is all in the "leftist" Upper Valley.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 28, 2014, 06:14:08 pm
Because every tax and regulation does take away someone's freedom.
But the reality of their demise is something that most don't want to deal with.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 28, 2014, 07:56:42 pm
Yes - it's not the same as saying that no regulation is justified. But taking away people's freedom is a real cost.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: lildog on July 30, 2014, 01:38:14 pm
And this is all in the "leftist" Upper Valley.

An area can be 90% pro freedom but if only the 10% show up to vote on election day, they end up determining who rules.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: TJames on July 30, 2014, 03:10:48 pm
And this is all in the "leftist" Upper Valley.

An area can be 90% pro freedom but if only the 10% show up to vote on election day, they end up determining who rules.

Only if the 90% believe in the same religion of government.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 30, 2014, 06:14:28 pm
Yes - it's not the same as saying that no regulation is justified. But taking away people's freedom is a real cost.
It is all justified. People can justify anything.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 30, 2014, 06:15:58 pm
And this is all in the "leftist" Upper Valley.

An area can be 90% pro freedom but if only the 10% show up to vote on election day, they end up determining who rules.

Only if the 90% believe in the same religion of government.
lildog was explaining that voters determine the rules. So it the pro-freedom group is a super-majority but never votes - it is ruled by the minority.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: MaineShark on July 30, 2014, 06:27:33 pm
lildog was explaining that voters determine the rules. So it the pro-freedom group is a super-majority but never votes - it is ruled by the minority.

TJames pointed out that as false, unless the 90% believe in the religion of Statism.  Without that mystique to back them up, the 10% can't rule anything, because the 90% would just say, "screw you, we ain't doing what you say, and you can't make us because we outnumber you nine to one."
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 30, 2014, 06:49:53 pm
Yes - it's not the same as saying that no regulation is justified. But taking away people's freedom is a real cost.
It is all justified. People can justify anything.

Justification isn't the same as rationalization.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: lildog on August 01, 2014, 08:30:49 am
lildog was explaining that voters determine the rules. So it the pro-freedom group is a super-majority but never votes - it is ruled by the minority.

TJames pointed out that as false, unless the 90% believe in the religion of Statism.  Without that mystique to back them up, the 10% can't rule anything, because the 90% would just say, "screw you, we ain't doing what you say, and you can't make us because we outnumber you nine to one."

It doesn't matter if the majority believe in it or not, if the 10% control the power (military and police) they can enforce their rules regardless of whether the majority support them or not.

We see it today, how many times do people look at what's going on in this country and say "that's stupid" or "I can't believe they get away with that" but people are too scared to do anything about it.  People fear, they fear losing their homes and their comforts around them so they wont take any risks against things they disagree with.  And when you ramp it up with military and police people become even more fearful of total loss of freedom or worse, death.

This allows the minority who show up and vote to enforce their will on everyone else.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: Sam Adams on August 01, 2014, 09:09:55 am
             If people are worried about losing their houses, that was the plan.[ who really owns them], Its called the debt trap, Easy money vs saving your hard earned money and owning everything out-right. This has been the game of ownership of people before the last 2015 years. The bankers and Insurance co,s tell you the rules along with regulations and u better Jump or you will be in the streets. 1774 everyone owned everything outright and they had spit and vinegar, don,t lean to heavy on those Americans. Now we have Debt citizens.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: MaineShark on August 02, 2014, 02:48:02 pm
It doesn't matter if the majority believe in it or not, if the 10% control the power (military and police) they can enforce their rules regardless of whether the majority support them or not.

No, even if that 10% included all of the military and police, they could not possibly enforce their will upon the other 90%.  It might be a bloody conflict, but they'd lose.

Only if they can convince most of that 90% to comply without overt use of force, is it even vaguely possible to maintain control.  If not, they'd be overwhelmed and destroyed in short order.

The only reason it works, is because the overwhelming majority of the population worship the State as a god, and will not deny its power, because that's blasphemous.  If they actually looked, they'd see that "the State" is just a bunch of humans in silly costumes, and they'd realize that they are more powerful and don't have to comply with the edicts of those costumed fools.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 03, 2014, 11:43:37 am
Yes - it's not the same as saying that no regulation is justified. But taking away people's freedom is a real cost.
It is all justified. People can justify anything.

Justification isn't the same as rationalization.
Actually, they are pretty close. It really seems to be a matter of majority.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 03, 2014, 11:44:32 am
             If people are worried about losing their houses, that was the plan.[ who really owns them], Its called the debt trap, Easy money vs saving your hard earned money and owning everything out-right. This has been the game of ownership of people before the last 2015 years. The bankers and Insurance co,s tell you the rules along with regulations and u better Jump or you will be in the streets. 1774 everyone owned everything outright and they had spit and vinegar, don,t lean to heavy on those Americans. Now we have Debt citizens.
You don't have to contract with banks or insurance companies - you volunteer to.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 03, 2014, 11:46:09 am
It doesn't matter if the majority believe in it or not, if the 10% control the power (military and police) they can enforce their rules regardless of whether the majority support them or not.

No, even if that 10% included all of the military and police, they could not possibly enforce their will upon the other 90%.  It might be a bloody conflict, but they'd lose.

Only if they can convince most of that 90% to comply without overt use of force, is it even vaguely possible to maintain control.  If not, they'd be overwhelmed and destroyed in short order.

The only reason it works, is because the overwhelming majority of the population worship the State as a god, and will not deny its power, because that's blasphemous.  If they actually looked, they'd see that "the State" is just a bunch of humans in silly costumes, and they'd realize that they are more powerful and don't have to comply with the edicts of those costumed fools.
They are the ones that elected those costumed fools.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 03, 2014, 11:56:12 am
lildog was explaining that voters determine the rules. So it the pro-freedom group is a super-majority but never votes - it is ruled by the minority.

TJames pointed out that as false, unless the 90% believe in the religion of Statism.  Without that mystique to back them up, the 10% can't rule anything, because the 90% would just say, "screw you, we ain't doing what you say, and you can't make us because we outnumber you nine to one."
Most likely they would then bother to vote. Most believe in the religion of not being bothered - either to vote or worry about the guy next door going down for the reason that you opposed, but couldn't find the incentive to vote against.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 03, 2014, 05:19:52 pm
Yes - it's not the same as saying that no regulation is justified. But taking away people's freedom is a real cost.
It is all justified. People can justify anything.

Justification isn't the same as rationalization.
Actually, they are pretty close. It really seems to be a matter of majority.

We can stipulate definitions however we want, but the generally accepted meaning of "X is justified in doing Y" is "X has sufficiently good reason to do Y." Reasons are generally independent of opinions. In some cases, that a majority believes doing Y is justified is itself all the justification needed (a good enough reason to do Y), such as when the leader of a legislative body enforces an otherwise-arbitrary rule of order that exists because it has the support of the majority in the body, but more often, a majority's belief doesn't give reasons.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: lildog on August 04, 2014, 08:33:19 am
It doesn't matter if the majority believe in it or not, if the 10% control the power (military and police) they can enforce their rules regardless of whether the majority support them or not.

No, even if that 10% included all of the military and police, they could not possibly enforce their will upon the other 90%.  It might be a bloody conflict, but they'd lose.

Only if they can convince most of that 90% to comply without overt use of force, is it even vaguely possible to maintain control.  If not, they'd be overwhelmed and destroyed in short order.

The only reason it works, is because the overwhelming majority of the population worship the State as a god, and will not deny its power, because that's blasphemous.  If they actually looked, they'd see that "the State" is just a bunch of humans in silly costumes, and they'd realize that they are more powerful and don't have to comply with the edicts of those costumed fools.

I would disagree with you but I heard a news story this morning that makes me think you are correct.

Friday facebook went down for 19 minutes.  Across the country the 911 system was overrun with calls from people in a panic because facebook was down.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 04, 2014, 05:40:13 pm
Yes - it's not the same as saying that no regulation is justified. But taking away people's freedom is a real cost.
It is all justified. People can justify anything.

Justification isn't the same as rationalization.
Actually, they are pretty close. It really seems to be a matter of majority.

We can stipulate definitions however we want, but the generally accepted meaning of "X is justified in doing Y" is "X has sufficiently good reason to do Y." Reasons are generally independent of opinions. In some cases, that a majority believes doing Y is justified is itself all the justification needed (a good enough reason to do Y), such as when the leader of a legislative body enforces an otherwise-arbitrary rule of order that exists because it has the support of the majority in the body, but more often, a majority's belief doesn't give reasons.
What are the justifiable reasons for something like the Renewable Portfolio Standard?
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 04, 2014, 09:21:14 pm
I don't think that is justified, whatever one thinks about the science and economics of global warming. NH carbon emissions cuts will do precisely zero to benefit the climate & environment of NH.
Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 05, 2014, 06:30:05 pm
Then you have shown about every member of the NH Legislature to support unjustifiable legislation.
That would include the members claiming an FSP connection that refuse to enter any legislation to repeal it.

Title: Re: NH is a bit different
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 07, 2014, 03:44:48 pm
Then you have shown about every member of the NH Legislature to support unjustifiable legislation.
That would include the members claiming an FSP connection that refuse to enter any legislation to repeal it.



Deciding not to act to stop an injustice or a wrong isn't itself an injustice, or even necessarily wrong. We can't solve all the problems of the world. There are opportunity costs of each, and of our time.