Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: Michelle on November 09, 2002, 12:48:09 pm

Title: The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 09, 2002, 12:48:09 pm
Recently, I have read a fair amount of discussion regarding population. That we should simply choose the one of the ten states with the lowest population. I really don't believe it is this simple though, because doing so totally disregards a critically important variable: native support.

Is there any truly accurate way of measuring current "libertarian-ness = % of native support"? If there is, I haven't found it yet. However, I believe there are some really strong indicators, that while they don't give us an accurate percentage, clearly point at one of our ten states.

Besides the fact that claiming it is as simple as looking at voting population #s alone, clearly overlooks the fact that we have already narrowed it down to the ten states with a population level at which we believe we could succeed...

Consider state A:

Voting population of 250,000.
Based on our best possible measurements, we find that it is likely that 15% of the native population will be likely to support the goals of the FSP.
That means that 37,500 current residents of the state will support us. Add 20,000 porcupines and we have 57,500 or 23% support.

Now consider state B:

Voting population of 500,000.
Based on our best possible measurements, we find that it is likely that 30% of the native population will be likely to support the goals of the FSP.
That means that 150,000 current residents of the state will support us. Add 20,000 porcupines and we have 170,000 or 34% support.

Clearly, despite the higher voting population of state B, we have a greater chance of succeeding there because the native population already supports us.

I believe that New Hampshire is state B, and while I haven't found the definitive evidence that would allow me to calculate a percentage of native support (my % above is bogus, used for illustrative purposes only), all of the indicators are there. These are not indicators that we can afford to overlook. They are critical to our success.

Read on....
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 09, 2002, 12:48:51 pm
First...the Republican sweep in the 2002 elections. The Democratic candidate for governor ran on an income tax platform. Record numbers of voters showed up at the polls on Tuesday to crush that idea. Well over 50% of NH voters clearly proved that we want small government, less costly government, and low taxes. THESE are the people that are likely to support the FSP. These are the voters that we want in the FSP state.

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=15565

Bye, bye, broadbase:
Small government, low taxes for NH

MARK FERNALD deserves the thanks of all Granite Staters for turning his campaign for governor into a referendum on the income tax. The question of whether New Hampshire residents place a higher value on tax fairness as measured by the "progressivity" of the tax system or on small, tightly constrained government has been answered definitively. The people of New Hampshire unquestionably favor smaller, less costly government, and they are willing to accept the flaws of a property tax-based funding mechanism to get it.

In his concession speech Tuesday night, Fernald repeated his argument for replacing the property tax system with an income tax. He pounded home his points that the property tax is unfair and the income tax fair, and he vowed to keep fighting to convince New Hampshire voters of this point. His implication was that the voters of this state still don't understand; that they weren't listening and they need to be told again and again until they get it through their thick heads.

On the contrary, it is Fernald who does not understand New Hampshire, not the other way around. Fernald campaigned solely on the income tax. He made his case forcefully and clearly. There could be little widespread misunderstanding of the issue. Voters listened, understood and disagreed.

Those who would say that this election was more about Craig Benson and his millions of dollars in campaign ads are wrong. If Benson defeated Fernald only because he vastly outspent him, how does one explain the Republican gains in the Senate and House? Almost every Democrat running for Senate favored Fernald's income tax plan, and the Republicans trounced them, picking up five seats for a total of 18 out of 24, and they gained seats in the House. Unofficial results
show Fernald won only 20 towns and lost by a total of 89,928 votes (or 102,876 if you count the Libertarian votes as votes against an income tax).

The anti-income tax votes did not come only from native Granite Staters, either. Most towns bordering Massachusetts went for Benson, too. The income tax is so unpopular that a ballot measure to kill it in Massachusetts got nearly 50 percent of the vote on Tuesday.

In the light produced by the flaming wreckage that is all that is left of Fernald's campaign, it is tempting to say that the income tax issue is settled once and for all in New Hampshire. It isn't. If Gov. Benson and the Legislature do not send the voters a constitutional amendment and fix the education funding mess, pressure for an income tax or other broadbased tax will build again. Now is the time, gentlemen and ladies. Don't let it slip by.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 09, 2002, 12:49:50 pm
And here is another editorial from a few days before the election that further drives this point home:

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=15401

Not the NH way:
Shaheen, Fernald don't represent NH ideas

NEW HAMPSHIRE people like to do things their own way. We don't care how things are done in Massachusetts or Maine, Vermont or Connecticut, New York or California. A lot of us moved here to get away from places like those. We came because we liked small government, low taxes and a rural way of life. That's one reason we pay more attention to our politicians than people in most other states pay to theirs. We don't want them turning our government into a carbon copy of everyone else's. We want ours to be unique, to protect the values and the way of life we cherish.

It is hard for most outsiders to understand this. They marvel at our extremely small, extremely local and extremely inexpensive government. And then they tell us we ought not have it that way; we ought to do things the way they do them back home.

That's more or less what the Eagle-Tribune of North Andover, Mass., said on Tuesday when it endorsed Mark Fernald for governor and Jeanne Shaheen for Senate. The left-leaning Massachusetts paper wrote that we should vote for Fernald and his income tax to "bring New Hampshire's tax policy into the 21st century." Well, we like our 19th century tax structure just fine, thank you very much. It has its flaws, to be sure, but it accomplishes the one thing it is meant to
accomplish: it keeps us from turning into Massachusetts.

The Eagle-Tribune claimed we ought to elect Shaheen to the U.S. Senate because she is more independent from her party leadership than Sununu is from his. This is as false as can be. Moreover, it ignores the central issue: which candidate holds New Hampshire values? Certainly not pro-tax, pro-big government Shaheen, who spent six years trying to make our state government indistinguishable from those of other New England states.

New Hampshire voters, whether native or newcomer, must consider why they live here and whether they want New Hampshire politicians to carry the generic, big-government banner under which politicians from other New England states march, or whether they want New Hampshire to remain unique and independent. In the races for governor and Senate, Craig Benson and John Sununu are the candidates who hold true New Hampshire values about government and taxes and would put those values to work. Their opponents do not and would not.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 09, 2002, 12:51:13 pm
What are some other indicators?

From the FSP state data page:
How about low dependence on the federal government? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.
How about smallest total government sector? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.
How about smallest state and local government sector? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.

How about density of current LP members in each state. NH is #1 in the nation (Sept. 30, 2002 figures):

State / Rank against 50 / density

NH / #1 / 202.5
AK / #2 / 184.3
VT / #3 / 164.7
WY / #9 / 123.4
ME / #14 / 105.7
ID / #17 / 103
MT / #18 / 96.2
DE / #27 / 76.6
ND / #43 / 52
SD / #44 / 48.9

What about a history of rejecting laws restrictive of personal freedom just to get federal highway dollars? Again, NH comes out ahead:
Least restrictive helmet laws in the nation: http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html
Least restrictive seatbelt laws in the nation: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/state_laws/restrain.htm

How about some of the lowest taxes in the nation? NH comes out on top (SD looks good here too):

Taxes as a percentage of gross personal income:

#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

State taxes per capita:

#1 SD $1226/person - 1st in nation
#2 NH $1372/person - 4th in nation
#3 MT $1564/person - 9th in nation
#4 ND $1826/person - 25th in nation
#5 ID $1837/person - 28th in nation
#6 WY $1952/person - 34th in nation
#7 ME $2087/person - 37th in nation
#8 AK $2270/person - 41st in nation
#9 VT $2416/person - 44th in nation
#10 DE $2721/person - 48th in nation

How about $s spent per citizen (state budget / state citizens). NH comes out on top:
This is a calculation that was done by Keith Murray and posted on the e-list, I'm posting the top 5.

New Hampshire
2985.95

South Dakota
3323.87

Idaho
3505.54

North Dakota
3920.90

Montana
4022.41

How about highest # of elected Libertarians? NH comes out on top:
http://www.lp.org/organization/states.html

NH - 26
VT - 18
ME - 7
ID - 3
DE - 2
SD - 1
WY - 1
AK - 1
MT - 0
ND - 0

So - these are the reasons that I am supporting New Hampshire as the #1 choice for the FSP. While I also believe that liveability factors will play a major role in our ultimate success (and I believe I made a very strong argument for why NH comes out on top when calculating these factors also in my NH report at http://www.freestateproject.com/newhampshire2.htm) I feel that these indicators of "current libertarian-ness = native support" are the most critical of them all.

I am 100% convinced that FSP will succeed in New Hampshire.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 09, 2002, 01:44:48 pm
Oops, I forgot another indicator.

How about proven friendliness of the press to libertarian ideals within the state? I think NH comes out tops here too:

WMUR/Channel 9 video mentioning FSP http://www.groupe.org/lpnh-conv

Front page NH Union Leader article on FSP http://www.unionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=14879

Recent show profiling LPNH candidates http://132.177.204.7:8080/ramgen/outlook/nho10212002.rm

Recent televised gubernatorial debate http://132.177.204.7:8080/ramgen/outlook/guberforum.rm

LP candidate also included in the WMUR debate -  this is not archived on the web, but you can read about it here http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/25/nh_gov1025a.asp

Extraordinary newspaper coverage of our 2002 LP candidate for governor: http://www.portfoliovault.com/babiarz/press.htm
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 09, 2002, 02:01:02 pm
Consider state A:

Voting population of 250,000.
Based on our best possible measurements, we find that it is likely that 15% of the native population will be likely to support the goals of the FSP.
That means that 37,500 current residents of the state will support us. Add 20,000 porcupines and we have 57,500 or 23% support.

Now consider state B:

Voting population of 500,000.
Based on our best possible measurements, we find that it is likely that 30% of the native population will be likely to support the goals of the FSP.
That means that 150,000 current residents of the state will support us. Add 20,000 porcupines and we have 170,000 or 34% support.

Based on your numbers state A gets 15% support and state B gets 30% support, how do you come at those numbers? If as you say that NH has 30% support already then how come they are not actually doing anything with it?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 09, 2002, 02:59:14 pm
Quote
Based on your numbers state A gets 15% support and state B gets 30% support, how do you come at those numbers? If as you say that NH has 30% support already then how come they are not actually doing anything with it?

I think if you re-read the first message, you will see that I explained this:

Quote
I believe that New Hampshire is state B, and while I haven't found the definitive evidence that would allow me to calculate a percentage of native support (my % above is bogus, used for illustrative purposes only), all of the indicators are there. These are not indicators that we can afford to overlook. They are critical to our success.

Code: [Select]
If as you say that NH has 30% support already then how come they are not actually doing anything with it?
I think that the rest of the points I made clearly prove that NH is already doing something with it. Is it perfect? Of course not! If it was, there would be no need for the FSP. But just think how much more we could accomplish with 20,000 activists in an already libertarian-leaning state!

Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Jacobus on November 09, 2002, 03:28:44 pm
I find it disconcerting that Bob Smith, who was the most libertarian senator there was, was cast aside for Sununu, who is obviously much more liberal than Smith.  Honestly, I didn't see much of a difference between what Shaheen and Sununu said at one of the debates I saw on TV.  But Blevins (the LP candidate) did very well I thought.  I was disappointed that even with the press coverage the Libertarians received they only managed the same percent vote as Libertarians elsewhere in teh country.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 09, 2002, 04:28:07 pm
Quote
But Blevins (the LP candidate) did very well I thought. I was disappointed that even with the press coverage the Libertarians received they only managed the same percent vote as Libertarians elsewhere in teh country.  

Ken Blevens was excellent; he always is in a public forum like that. It was disappointing, but not particularly surprising. People turned out in droves to vote down the income tax. The GOP ran a very aggressive campaign that appears to have been quite effective at convincing voters that they needed to vote a straight GOP-ticket in order to ensure that an income tax wouldn't pass.

Actually, FWIW, the last time I checked, John Babiarz had done the third-best in the nation among all LP gubernatorial candidates. I know that still isn't much, but it's something. Based on our reception during the campaign (I worked on his campaign team), we expected much better, but I guess this just wasn't the right time. Now, if we had 20,000 more activists who could have helped provide support at debates, talk to friends and neighbors, make phone calls, contribute $ so we could have done some advertising, write letters to the editor, work the polls, etc., who knows what we could have done  :)

Why do you say Smith is more libertarian than Sununu?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Jacobus on November 09, 2002, 04:35:06 pm
Quote
Why do you say Smith is more libertarian than Sununu?

I remember seeing Smith's voting record once, and it was the best of any of the Senators.  He consistently voted against gun control and for economic freedom.  This was a while ago and I think the source was The New American, so I can't really give specifics.  
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Penfist on November 09, 2002, 07:37:56 pm
Quote
Why do you say Smith is more libertarian than Sununu?

I remember seeing Smith's voting record once, and it was the best of any of the Senators.  He consistently voted against gun control and for economic freedom.  This was a while ago and I think the source was The New American, so I can't really give specifics.  

I've always been under the impression Ron Paul is the most Libertarian guy in the pit of hell known as Washington, D.C. Am I wrong?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 09, 2002, 07:52:33 pm
Quote
(my % above is bogus, used for illustrative purposes only)
Exactly my point you made up a number and stated it as if it was true. I used to play the what if game to. If you can say NH is 30% Libertarian then I can say man has been to the moon. It may appear that way but reality shows otherwise.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on November 09, 2002, 08:10:03 pm
Quote
Why do you say Smith is more libertarian than Sununu?

I remember seeing Smith's voting record once, and it was the best of any of the Senators.  He consistently voted against gun control and for economic freedom.  This was a while ago and I think the source was The New American, so I can't really give specifics.  

I've always been under the impression Ron Paul is the most Libertarian guy in the pit of hell known as Washington, D.C. Am I wrong?

You are correct.  Ron Paul is much more libertarian than anyone else (elected) in D.C.  However, Ron Paul is a Rep. and not a Sen.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on November 09, 2002, 08:19:56 pm
I believe that New Hampshire is state B, and while I haven't found the definitive evidence that would allow me to calculate a percentage of native support (my % above is bogus, used for illustrative purposes only), all of the indicators are there. These are not indicators that we can afford to overlook. They are critical to our success.


WY has the 3 or 4th most 'powerful' LP of all 10 states.  WY was well less than 250,000 voters.

NH is  in New England, the liberal center of the country.  Liberals are moving to NH.  Yes, they, as we speak, are moving into NH.  MA has millions of liberals and the more the Boston area rounds out of land and the more expensive the houses get the more liberals will move to NH.

It is almost like this:
The liberals will move to NH (they already are).
A few years later the FSP will move there.
At the same time the liberals will continue to move to NH.
The 5 year move in of the FSP will end.
Liberals will still move into NH.
Some reforms will pass and a few more Freedom lovers will move to NH.
Liberals will still move into NH.
Reforms will stop passing.
Liberals will still move into NH, but freedom lovers will stop moving in.
The reforms will start to be repealed by the liberals.
Freedom lovers will start moving out West for more freedom and lover taxes.
Liberals will continue to move into NH.
Back to square one.

Just a few thoughts...
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 09, 2002, 08:24:14 pm
Quote
Exactly my point you made up a number and stated it as if it was true

Ummmm....since I clearly stated that the numbers were made up just to illustrate a point, please tell me how that is "stating that they are true."

I gave a general example to illustrate why I felt the percentage of freedom-oriented people in a state is one of, if not the most important criteria we should be looking at. I was careful to be very clear that these were just examples not representing any particular states. That is why I labeled them "state A" and "state B."

I then went on to explain why I think it is reasonable to deduce that a high percentage of the NH population is inherently libertarian and likely to support FSP. I don't know of a precise way to measure this. If someone does, I hope they will share it.

You are welcome to disagree, but please don't insult my integrity.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 09, 2002, 08:33:04 pm
Quote
It is almost like this:
The liberals will move to NH (they already are).
A few years later the FSP will move there.
At the same time the liberals will continue to move to NH.
The 5 year move in of the FSP will end.
Liberals will still move into NH.
Some reforms will pass and a few more Freedom lovers will move to NH.
Liberals will still move into NH.
Reforms will stop passing.
Liberals will still move into NH, but freedom lovers will stop moving in.

Well, but the "so-called" liberals have been moving here for a long time. If what you say is true, how do you explain this past election? I don't have all the answers, but I think the editorial that I posted above addresses this pretty well and shows how it is a non-issue.

Besides, why would liberals be moving into a state that has been liberated by FSP and is not giving the free handouts they want or playing the nanny that they are used to? It seems to me that they would want to stay away, remaining in their own nanny-states.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on November 09, 2002, 08:34:04 pm
Quote
Exactly my point you made up a number and stated it as if it was true

....since I clearly stated that the numbers were made up just to illustrate a point, please tell me how that is "stating that they are true."

I gave a general example to illustrate why I felt the percentage of freedom-oriented people in a state is one of, if not the most important criteria we should be looking at. I was careful to be very clear that these were just examples not representing any particular states. That is why I labeled them "state A" and "state B."

I then went on to explain why I think it is reasonable to deduce that a high percentage of the NH population is inherently libertarian and likely to support FSP. I don't know of a precise way to measure this. If someone does, I hope they will share it.



Right, you made up fake states and then compared them.  I took your fake states in a different direction and replaced them with real states.  I did this because I think the choice for most people is b/t WY and NH.  Just like you want everyone to move to NH I want everyone to move to WY.  You made NH look good in your post based on guessing and I made NH look bad in my post based on guessing.  I am not trying to upset anyone, in anyway, whatsoever.

Enjoy,  ;)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 09, 2002, 09:06:52 pm
Quote
Right, you made up fake states and then compared them.  I took your fake states in a different direction and replaced them with real states.  I did this because I think the choice for most people is b/t WY and NH.  

What??

Sorry. I don't understand. Wyoming looks great on population. I think that is really important. But I also think that even more important is the percentage of that population that will support the free state. I used my state a/state b examples to show why I feel we must take both criteria into consideration.

Do you disagree with me? If so, why?

I also gave all sorts of examples of why I think it is reasonable to think that a large percentage of the NH population will support FSP.

If that is true of WY, please convince me. Could we expect that a large percentage of the WY people will back and support FSP if we choose that state?

More important...how could we objectively measure these indicators? If you don't agree with my indicators, what do you think is important?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 09, 2002, 09:17:18 pm
You made up numbers based on opinion not facts. I could say in my opinion that 30% of Wyoming would support the FSP and provide tidbits as to why, never the less that does not make it the gospel truth.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 09, 2002, 09:24:00 pm
Also if the do not support the FSP like you say then we are screwed big time the whole thing will fall apart. If in say Wyoming, which has a smaller population, even without the initial support of the local we would still have a substantial impact which we could build off.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Heyduke on November 09, 2002, 10:50:34 pm
It is quite apparent to me, Michelle, that you will go to any extent to merely push NH as a candidate.  Your arguments do not hold as much water as you would like them to, and these other folks are attempting to point such out to you.  

That being said, I would be willing to, as a NH native, negotiate a trade with any state willing to accept the Somersworth region in exchange for future considerations.  Perhaps a village to be named later and a pack of bubble gum?  

Seriously though, I appreciate the dialogue that you are maintaining, but I will retain my right to speak for NH as I know it.  And if that means ruffling feathers, then...so be it...

 :'(
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 10, 2002, 12:15:07 am
Quote
From the FSP state data page:
How about low dependence on the federal government? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.
How about smallest total government sector? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.
How about smallest state and local government sector? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.

How about density of current LP members in each state. NH is #1 in the nation (Sept. 30, 2002 figures):

State / Rank against 50 / density

NH / #1 / 202.5
AK / #2 / 184.3
VT / #3 / 164.7
WY / #9 / 123.4
ME / #14 / 105.7
ID / #17 / 103
MT / #18 / 96.2
DE / #27 / 76.6
ND / #43 / 52
SD / #44 / 48.9

What about a history of rejecting laws restrictive of personal freedom just to get federal highway dollars? Again, NH comes out ahead:
Least restrictive helmet laws in the nation: http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html
Least restrictive seatbelt laws in the nation: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/state_laws/restrain.htm

How about some of the lowest taxes in the nation? NH comes out on top (SD looks good here too):

Taxes as a percentage of gross personal income:

#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

State taxes per capita:

#1 SD $1226/person - 1st in nation
#2 NH $1372/person - 4th in nation
#3 MT $1564/person - 9th in nation
#4 ND $1826/person - 25th in nation
#5 ID $1837/person - 28th in nation
#6 WY $1952/person - 34th in nation
#7 ME $2087/person - 37th in nation
#8 AK $2270/person - 41st in nation
#9 VT $2416/person - 44th in nation
#10 DE $2721/person - 48th in nation

How about $s spent per citizen (state budget / state citizens). NH comes out on top:
This is a calculation that was done by Keith Murray and posted on the e-list, I'm posting the top 5.

New Hampshire
2985.95

South Dakota
3323.87

Idaho
3505.54

North Dakota
3920.90

Montana
4022.41

How about highest # of elected Libertarians? NH comes out on top:
http://www.lp.org/organization/states.html

NH - 26
VT - 18
ME - 7
ID - 3
DE - 2
SD - 1
WY - 1
AK - 1
MT - 0
ND - 0

I posted some facts and asked for intelligent conversation about whether or not these were indicators of existing libertarian attitudes. Nobody has any opinion about these?

So far, everyone has just accused me of being biased or something, but nobody has addressed my questions or my post. If being biased means that I have an opinion about which state I think we are most likely to succeed in, then I guess I am biased. But, I also have a very open mind and am willing to listen to the facts supporting other states. FSP is too important to me not to have an open mind.

So...if I'm wrong, how am I wrong?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 10, 2002, 12:23:00 am
Quote
You made up numbers based on opinion not facts. I could say in my opinion that 30% of Wyoming would support the FSP and provide tidbits as to why, never the less that does not make it the gospel truth.

I never said NH would have X% support. I said I didn't have an objective way to measure that and offered possible indicators that I have been thinking about. I then asked for intelligent discussion about how we could measure it because I think it is a critical criteria.

Just because you say I did something doesn't make it so. This is a web forum and anyone can easily scroll back to look at earlier messages.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 10, 2002, 12:30:19 am
Quote
Also if the do not support the FSP like you say then we are screwed big time the whole thing will fall apart. If in say Wyoming, which has a smaller population, even without the initial support of the local we would still have a substantial impact which we could build off.

That is a pretty good point. But, if we aren't supported by the existing residents of the state, how far would we really get?

Of course, you are also ignoring the fact that we already narrowed it down to the ten states most likely to succeed based on population. NH obviously made that cut, so I can't see how it would fall apart.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 10, 2002, 12:34:19 am
You said State B has 30% and that state B was NH.

Tell me the population of NH then Wyoming. If both states ended up supporting us equally then Wyoming would be the best choice due to 20,000 being a higher percentage in itself.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 10, 2002, 12:56:26 am
Quote
You said State B has 30% and that state B was NH.

Well, you are still leaving out the key pieces of what I actually stated. But whatever, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I tried to be. I guess it could have been confusing the way I phrased it. If I could go back, I would simply say, I think that based on the evidence NH likely has a higher percentage of its population that will support FSP, and that factor trumps population.

Is that better?

I don't know the population of WY off the top of my head - I'd have to go look it up. But that kind of misses the point. Now that we've already narrowed it down to the ten lowest population states, any has the possibility of success. I'm now trying to determine the next most important criteria.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: mlilback on November 10, 2002, 12:10:30 pm
I posted some facts and asked for intelligent conversation about whether or not these were indicators of existing libertarian attitudes. Nobody has any opinion about these?
I agree with you here. All the other posts seem like attacks on you and the premise, but not on the facts you posted. The facts are the long lists of stats, not that people can't understand the hypothetical in your first post that you meant to show might apply to NH (with an unknown percent).

I'd been leaning more towards VT over NH, but I think you make a very compelling argument for NH.

How about highest # of elected Libertarians? NH comes out on top:
http://www.lp.org/organization/states.html

NH - 26
VT - 18
ME - 7
ID - 3
DE - 2
SD - 1
WY - 1
AK - 1
MT - 0
ND - 0

This is one of the most important factors to consider, IMHO. If a state has never elected a third party candidate, what are the odds the FSP will have any success in that state?

I see this as a much better sign of native support than how many people voted republican, as many like to use. Republicans, aside from Ron Paul and Jim Jeffords (before leaving the party), rarely if every vote against the party line. We need voters willing to accept candidates who aren't republicans or democrats.

Mark
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 10, 2002, 01:57:48 pm
Quote
I'd been leaning more towards VT over NH, but I think you make a very compelling argument for NH.

Thank you Mark.

Why Vermont? I haven't seen too many people advocating for Vermont although I suspect it could have a lot more potential than people are giving it credit for.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 10, 2002, 02:28:35 pm
Quote
Why Vermont? I haven't seen too many people advocating for Vermont although I suspect it could have a lot more potential than people are giving it credit for.

Me again.

Mark - don't feel like you need to restate your position again here unless you want to. I've just been reading your arguments for VT on other threads and they make good sense to me.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Solitar on November 10, 2002, 03:43:17 pm
For those of us who consider the freedom to carry concealed weapons with no permit Vermont is tops. It is also tops for apparently no lower age limit for hunting (New Hampshire require accompaniment under 16),
For those of us who prefer small towns and shy away from large urban or metro areas, and for just the smallest population and pool of voters Vermont and Wyoming are tops.

I think Vermont is a lot more doable than people give it credit for:
Figuring the cause of liberty is in worse shape in both NH and VT
          In VT assuming a vote of 30% for liberty and 70% against
19% of VT voters are for liberty, 44% are not, 37% don't vote.
  37,940 or 13% need to be turned or
  75,880 or 26% new voters need to be convinced to vote for liberty.
           In NH assuming  a vote of 40% for liberty and 60% against
24.5% of NH voters are for liberty, 36.5% are not, 39% don't vote.
  36,840 or 6.5% need to be turned or
  73,680 or 13 % new voters need to be convinced to vote for liberty
See the details of the above at
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=195

As to LP officeholders - please look behind the number to the significance of those offices.  Such success would be laudable after three years of LP "effort", but not after thirty years of LP "effort"!!   The LP also inflates their numbers by listing each of the several offices that one person holds!)  I've tabulated the details of the much-vaunted LP officeholder numbers at the following thread.
Ranking states by LP officeholders
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=808
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Heyduke on November 10, 2002, 10:23:53 pm
Joe...you must be in the open minded subset of the group...

NH--certainly thrid party candidates would have a chance, provided they were an option.  We really haven't had many viable options even among the established 2, so any third party options tend to not be taken so seriously.  

VT--let's see, they have a former R senator that went I at a very crucial time in recent politics...they have a socialist rep. that is listed as an I...they have a D for a governor that was formerly a lieutenant governor to a R governor when he died in office (snelling)...they have a real presence from the Greens party and a curious group called the PC (progressive coalition) that has had a major role in the burlington area for years...they have numerous little academic regions with alternative views on things...they have a large number of former hippies and social dropouts...

regardless--you folks have a curious challenge ahead of you, and I'm certainly going to play my odd humored devil's advocacy here and again...

oh--I'll up the ante...anyone that wants somersworth--I'll throw in rochester and gordon humphrey--just a little somethin' for the effort... 8)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: mlilback on November 12, 2002, 07:51:16 pm
Mark - don't feel like you need to restate your position again here unless you want to. I've just been reading your arguments for VT on other threads and they make good sense to me.

I think VT and NH share a lot of points, but I've been leaning towards VT because of the smaller size and the Boston commuter flight. But as you pointed out, there are lots of reasons NH could overcome those.

NH is my sentimental favorite, too, as I think it would be great for the FSP's state to have the motto of "live free or die". I use that and Patrick's Henry's statement all the time, but most people seem frightened that I'd rather die than be forced to do something.

(I take it too an extreme, too. Someone tried to mug me when I only had $5, but I fought anyway because it was my money and I wasn't giving it to anyone, even if it was just a penny. Of course he was crazy to go after me, as I'm 6'4"/230# while he was around 5'6"/140#.)

Mark
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 13, 2002, 01:10:23 pm
What's the advantage of the Boston commuter flight vs. bus or Amtrak from NH? From where I live, it's only about an hour to Boston on the bus and $36 round trip - it definitely beats driving and parking.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: milas59 on November 13, 2002, 08:58:48 pm
Sorry my partial message got sent by mistake

Im a newby to the lists. I joined FSP a month ago . I am from VT and ready to go anywhere the group chooses but am a little disappointed at the many NH folks who seem to promote their state just because they live there.

NH has the same lousy climate as VT and major suburbia from MA to Manchester. VT has no suburbia. NH also has the old depressed mill town of Manchester. VT has the lovely college town on the lake, Burlington. People have been moving to bedroom in NH from Boston for over 20 years.

Like VT,  NH is part of the Great Northeast and is gradually swinging from old conservative to left liberal and it is growing from 1.2 million to almost 1.6 million in 2025.
Of our ten states NH will be the ninth  largest population.

Im a libertarian so I dont vote for the lesser of two evils very often, but I guess I dont believe conservative NH or VT is any more likely to become libertarian than MA or Hawaii where we connect on personal rather than economic issues


Ok, Ill say sure  there are other factors other than population, but when NH is at the bottom populationwise, if I was from Missouri, Id say Show Me  what NHs got REALLY to make me believe we can succeed there?!

Peter Baker
(worked in NH/lived in VT)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Solitar on November 14, 2002, 04:28:43 am
Many here doubt the FSP can turn around tiny Vermont with only 600,000 people and the Burlington MSA with only 170,000. If the FSP's activists can't handle Vermont, they won't be able to handle northern Delaware or southern New Hampshire.

The following shows just how borderline New Hampshire is.
Not that Bush is a saving vote, but this election was indicative of socialist trends.
I’ve totaled the votes as following.
Republican, Constitution, Libertarian, and Independent
Democratic and Green

County: R/C/L/I vote vs D/G Vote
The three southernmost counties bordering Massachusetts:
Rockingham: 67,075 vs 66,841
Hillsborough: 82,277 vs 83,090
Cheshire: 14,176 vs 19,132
The next two heading north central:
Merrimack: 30,576 vs 32,965
Strafford: 21,740 vs 27,673
Two Western counties (what happened to the rural Republicans in Grafton?):
Sullivan: 9,541 vs 9,069
Grafton: 18,543 vs 20,109
The northeastern counties:
Belknap: 15,025 vs 11,696
Carroll: 12,864 vs 10,938
Coos: 7,542 vs 7,033
Only these northeastern New Hampshire counties are "safe" for now. The southern and western counties need reinforcements before we lose New Hampshire. If it had not been for Nader's Greens, Gore would have won New Hampshire!
Feel free to check my addition. This is where I got the numbers.
 http://www.state.nh.us/sos/general2000/sumpres.html

The populations of each NH county in 2000 was:
Coos:   33,111
Sullivan:   40,458
Cheshire:   73,825
Grafton:   81,743
Belknap:   56,325
Strafford:   112,233
Carroll:   43,666
Merrimack:   136,225
Rockingham:   277,359
Hillsborough:   380,841
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on November 14, 2002, 03:13:39 pm
The following shows just how borderline New Hampshire is.
Not that Bush is a saving vote, but this election was indicative of socialist trends.
I’ve totaled the votes as following.
Republican, Constitution, Libertarian, and Independent
Democratic and Green

County: R/C/L/I vote vs D/G Vote
The three southernmost counties bordering Massachusetts:
Rockingham: 67,075 vs 66,841
Hillsborough: 82,277 vs 83,090
Cheshire: 14,176 vs 19,132
The next two heading north central:
Merrimack: 30,576 vs 32,965
Strafford: 21,740 vs 27,673
Two Western counties (what happened to the rural Republicans in Grafton?):
Sullivan: 9,541 vs 9,069
Grafton: 18,543 vs 20,109
The northeastern counties:
Belknap: 15,025 vs 11,696
Carroll: 12,864 vs 10,938
Coos: 7,542 vs 7,033
Only these northeastern New Hampshire counties are "safe" for now. The southern and western counties need reinforcements before we lose New Hampshire. If it had not been for Nader's Greens, Gore would have won New Hampshire!

The vote does look pretty bad.  However, that is just one election.  The most recent (2002) elections seem to favor the R and LP more.  However, the answer is true.  The NH voters voted for people who are Athoritarian (both Gore and Nader) (according to the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz) over the Athoritarian Bush, Conservative Howard, and Libertarian Browne (according to the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz).
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: eoffshore on November 17, 2002, 11:53:38 am
When we left Wyoming in '93 to liveaboard a sailboat, we bought a boat in Maine, traveling along the eastern seaboard as we made our way to FL and ultimately TX.  And while I liked Maine and NH the culture (to which I was briefly exposed) didn't seem as thoroughly individualist as the Wyoming we had left.

As a choice for eastern FSPer's, I guess NH isn't so bad, but being surrounded by statist neighbors, there is no buffer to defend against further liberal degredations.

Here back in WY, we have CO to the south (slowly becoming more liberal), conservative NE and conservative/libertarian SD to the east, our Militia of Montana brothers to the north, and allies ID and UT to the east. I think ID is being infiltrated by quite a number of left coast types, however.  Chose WY: small pop, great quality of life (for outdoorsmen), surrounded by strong buffer states,  and a bright, sunny winter climate that doesn't feel as bad as you'd think.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on December 12, 2002, 01:01:17 pm
Yeah NH!  You can commute to Boston and actually get a job in your field.  Delaware too has access to major cities.  Whithout access to major cities the vast majority of us won't be able to find a job in out field.  Basically I think any choice beside NH or Delaware is suicide no one will show up because they can't find a job.

-E
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: varrin on December 13, 2002, 01:21:22 pm
Eddie,

I got a buck says people will show up to Idaho.  Jobs in Boise are the best in the west (among our candidates), according to all of the information available here.  

V-

Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Greggers69 on December 13, 2002, 11:49:03 pm
Well one good thing is I could see some Patriot games.  Love to see them in Action at the Gillette stadium lol  Greg
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on December 14, 2002, 05:53:20 pm
I'm really hoping for Wyoming or Idaho, but I also like to lay all the cards on the table. I can see one advantage that NH has that no other state does: being cheek-by-jowl with socialist Vermont!

Some of you guys are looking at this proximity as a disadvantage, but I don't know. What I would expect to see, is refugees from socialism running to NH. The very kinds of people we'd need to reinforce us. Same thing from MA.

What makes me think this, is what happens here in Portland, Oregon. People move to Vancouver, across the river in Washington, to escape the Oregon income tax, while they shop in Oregon to escape the Washington sales tax. There are strong tax incentives to move across a border if that border is close. NH must be drawing tax-hating Vermonters and MA folks like crazy.

If we were in NH and kept prosperous and free, while VT and MA went down the socialist crapper, think of what an example that would be to the rest of the country!

I know you guys have posted some election numbers that make things look iffy, but what would really be convincing would be the trends in those numbers. Are they getting worse, or better?

There is another problem with those numbers. They assume R's are more freedom-loving than D's (I'm talking ordinary citizens, not legislators). I think that is at least questionable. R's like libertarian rhetoric, but the reality is, when they come into power, government grows just as fast as if D's control it. To me there is a lot of evidence that D's (citizens, not legislators) are tired of their party and looking for somewhere to go...

Again, I want to emphasize, I really think the best bet is Wyoming. I've lived all over the country, (including Delaware) and the interior west is what I like best. The proximity of large, statist population centers makes me nervous, despite the point I raised above.

Quote
It is almost like this:
The liberals will move to NH (they already are).
A few years later the FSP will move there.
At the same time the liberals will continue to move to NH.
The 5 year move in of the FSP will end.
Liberals will still move into NH.
Some reforms will pass and a few more Freedom lovers will move to NH.
Liberals will still move into NH.
Reforms will stop passing.
Liberals will still move into NH, but freedom lovers will stop moving in.
The reforms will start to be repealed by the liberals.
Freedom lovers will start moving out West for more freedom and lover taxes.
Liberals will continue to move into NH.
Back to square one.
This is actually a general problem. When our state becomes more free, it will naturally become more prosperous, and draw people for economic reasons who have no commitment to freedom. We'll have to think of an antidote, something like requiring supermajorities for revenue bills and measures to pass, and other such tactics...
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Kelton on December 27, 2002, 05:12:23 am
Here is an author, Vermont state Rep. Frank Mazur, who writes that New Hampshire is better than Vermont for economic policy as he follows in the footsteps of Milton Friedman who evaluated "a study done by a Dartmouth College professor comparing New Hampshire to Vermont from 1940-1974." by doing his own analysis of NH vs VT today.
Yes, you read correctly, he is a Vermont politician stating this!

   http://home.adelphia.net/~frankmazur/nh_vs_vt.htm
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: MLiq on December 30, 2002, 08:18:33 am
zxcv makes a good point, Boston area people don't move to NH because they want to make their commute longer, they move their to avoid taxes.   The people who move there are probably on our side more than the average Bostoner.  

I understand that for those of you who are outdoorsmen the west is great but for us urban professionals, that does not cut it and it never will.  On the other hand, why can't you hunt and shoot just as well in NH or DE or VT or ME?  

I also agree that it is better to be surrounded by states that are opposite to us, and populous.  When people start hearing about FSP more after we move there, we will get a huge influx of Libertarians from NYC, Boston, other places once they see that it is for real.  People in states that are already fairly small government won't care enough to support us and move.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on December 30, 2002, 04:47:11 pm
Quote
On the other hand, why can't you hunt and shoot just as well in NH or DE or VT or ME?  

Something tells me you're not a hunter, MLiq.   ;)

Although I understand hunting in Maine is pretty good. But nothing (except maybe Alaska and Africa!) beats hunting in the west.

I don't know if it's actually better to have an opposite culture state nearby. Even though folks from Massachusetts might like the low taxes, that doesn't necessarily mean they are not statist. They just want someone else to pay for the government!  :(

I think most Nevadans would say their state has become more statist since the Californians started arriving. At least that's the impression I get from reading Vin Suprynowicz's stuff.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: alecmuller on January 28, 2003, 01:26:20 pm
What happened to this thread?  I started out as a NH fan and recently shifted to WY, but after reading all this I don't know what to think.

I completely agree with what people have said regarding native support - that it's tough to measure, and perhaps the one thing that could be more important than population.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen as much in the way of rational, unemotional discussion of measurement criteria as I'd hoped.

Personally, I don't hold a lot of stock in election numbers (parties varry too much from state to state; for example, I'd probably take an WY Democrat over a NY Republican more often than not) or subjective descriptions of individualist character.  I care about how strong a government each state has, not how it got it or what its critters call call themselves, or how their constituents claim to view themselves.  I would sincerely like to hear rational discussion from people who disagree with me on this.

For those who do agree with the idea that the existing government (or lack of it) and the laws already in place are the best measure of native character, what can you tell me about your favorite states regarding the strength of their governments?

How much money do they steal from you? (this one's rhetorical, we can all find the answers from the state data page)

How many laws do they have restricting business and personal freedom, how harsh are they, and how well do they enforce them? (this one is hard to answer, and by it's nature more subjective than would be ideal)  How much impact does the state government have on your daily life? (subjective, but helpful for figuring out which specific laws to look at)

How many total pages of laws are in the state register? (could you actually read it if you wanted to?  the federal register, for instance, is more than 40,000 pages and would take nearly a year to read at 8 hours a day, and even then I'm pretty sure I wouldn't understand it.)  Are the laws actually understandable, or do they look like they were never intended to be read or understood by anyone except lawyers?

So I'm asking you all:

Do you agree with my measuring assumption? (the existing government is the best indicator of the native culture)
How does your state do based on my criteria?
What other criteria for the strength/intrusiveness of the existing state governments are important to you?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on January 28, 2003, 07:48:40 pm
Alec,

Don't have the intellect, knowledge, or political savey, that you have or most of the folks out there do, but my momma taught me a long time ago to "don't go were your not wanted son"  So I'm hopeful that the group choses New Hampshire, because I believe we are wanted there.

And not being a scholar, all things considered want to go were I am wanted!
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on January 29, 2003, 02:05:16 am
Don't have the intellect, knowledge, or political savey, that you have or most of the folks out there do, but my momma taught me a long time ago to "don't go were your not wanted son"  So I'm hopeful that the group choses New Hampshire, because I believe we are wanted there.

And not being a scholar, all things considered want to go were I am wanted!

Well, the NHLP certainly wants us, but they may be operating under the assumption that we're all going to be straight LP supporters, I don't know.  As far as the rest of the state goes, that's hard to say; at least one New Hampshire resident has written on this forum that he is not looking for the FSP to go there.  See the following thread for that discussion:

What about being an unwelcome presence? (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=550)

Jason once received a negative response from a Montana resident that he shared on the Yahoo list, but he may have received others as well.  The only state that I've heard of so far that has acknowledged the possibility of our coming in any official capacity is Wyoming.  The Wyoming federal attorney said we were welcome there as long as we obeyed federal law like everyone else.

It's too bad we can't poll the residents of these various states to see what sort of reception we'd find there.  On the whole, there are only two real criteria we can go by on that score: 1) What % of the population is native to that state, 2) What trends appear in that state's political history.  Both of these may determine how a state's current residents might receive the FSP.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: JasonPSorens on January 29, 2003, 08:49:56 am
I think the NHLP has been more welcoming because they got an early jump on the other states.  Some of the first FSP members were major figures in the NHLP.  However, some of the other states are starting to come around.  I'm hoping the NHLP's and ME LP's announcements will provide the added incentive for them to make a serious effort to bring us in.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on January 29, 2003, 12:53:21 pm
RobertH, Jason,

I appreciate your input.  Perhaps in time as the word spreads more states will become  supportive of our effort, but I must go with what I see.

I too have given Idaho much consideration as our state of destination, and could live with that choice, my major concern there, is Federal land ownership.

As I read the various threads, and follow the debates, east-west, cold-warm, statists-freedom loving, urban-rural, etc. sometimes I must admit I feel overwhelmed!

But as I look at the various statics, and information available, I can't help but think the most serious division is urban-rural, and again that brings me to NH.  I believe that NH offers us the best of both worlds, something for everyone so to speak!

Again I thank you for your response and welcome your thoughts!
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on January 29, 2003, 03:11:49 pm
Quote
The Wyoming federal attorney said we were welcome there as long as we obeyed federal law like everyone else.

Nice of him to remind us about the law. Now if we could get the federal government to obey federal law (e.g., the Constitution), then we'd have something!   ::)

Of course, we can't take the opinions of a few individuals as a measure of how welcome we'd be in a state - least of all that of the slimebags in government.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on January 30, 2003, 04:02:24 am
Quote
The Wyoming federal attorney said we were welcome there as long as we obeyed federal law like everyone else.

Nice of him to remind us about the law. Now if we could get the federal government to obey federal law (e.g., the Constitution), then we'd have something!   ::)

That would be nice, wouldn't it?  

Quote
Of course, we can't take the opinions of a few individuals as a measure of how welcome we'd be in a state - least of all that of the slimebags in government.

True.  Of course, in this instance, the person speaking was a fairly significant public official, so he could certainly have used his position to harm our cause if he had chosen to do so.  The fact that he didn't surprised me a bit at the time.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on January 30, 2003, 05:57:26 pm
Help!!!!   Maybe I'm missing something. but what does the federal attorney in Wyoming have to do with NH?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on January 31, 2003, 04:47:57 am
Help!!!!   Maybe I'm missing something. but what does the federal attorney in Wyoming have to do with NH?

It was mentioned in regard to going where we are wanted.  This topic brought up the issue of who wants us, and from there, what response we've seen from states thus far.  The Wyoming federal attorney was mentioned because this is, to my understanding, the only time an actual state representative of some type has acknowledged and said anything about the FSP and whether or not it would be welcome.

Other responses have come from individuals and from LP and Constitution party members, but not from state government or officials.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: enewhouse on February 05, 2003, 12:51:30 am
Hi,
My name is Eric, at the moment I live in Montana just minutes from Wyoming. I have resided here for approx. 15 years now. My first 21 years, I grew up in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. I have personally experienced the best and worst of both places and I could speak for hours on the subject. To keep it short and sweet I would like to make two very obvious statements.
One - The economy out west will absolutly work against the goals of the FSP period.  I have been very fortunate with my business in Montana but believe me, worrying about putting food on the table is a very common family practice out west and can blur the vision and cripple the spirit of well intentioned individuals.

Two - Now we want to get together with our members to plan, rally and meet one another, in a place like New Hampshire the longest one would travel to get to say Concord is 2 Hrs. You could do this with very little notice even during the week. Now try Wyoming or Montana. You may want to take a day off of work (If you can afford to) and then plan to stay for the weekend as a 7 Hr trip is possible and 4 to 5 hrs is likely. These are very serious considerations if this project is going to come to fruition.

Sincerly yours,
Eric

Ps. If NH is chosen I'll would move my family tomorrow, for this project could definately work there.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on February 05, 2003, 03:34:16 am
Welcome, Eric.   :)  Your experience with both regions could prove very useful here.

As for economic conditions in parts of the west, the FSP should have quite a lot to offer in the next few years for improving this situation, and there has been much discussion of starting businesses and otherwise investing in our new location already.  This will be an important part of our acceptance no matter where we go, but it seems logical that it would help us even more in the west where the population is not as affluent.

In regard to porcupine meetings in the chosen state, most of our activism should initially be confined to our own localities.  It wouldn't be wise to try making too big of a scene on the state level when we first arrive, and the meat of the reforms we'll be trying to enact will involve campaigning and otherwise working for support on the local level anyway.  There shouldn't be much of a need to mass our numbers together on a state-wide basis very often.  

And based on what we can see about the demographics of our group, I'd imagine that we'd be more or less regionally concentrated (depending on the state).  For instance, in Wyoming most of our members would probably live in or near Cheyenne and Casper, which would put them three hours or so apart.  This should be fine for the purposes of annual or biannual meetings, which would probably last a day or so anyway.  Otherwise, our local focus would naturally lead us to meet in smaller groups in our own communities.

Even in a small state like New Hampshire, I doubt we'd see many mass FSP meetings.  Having one every now and then would be beneficial, but doing it too often might make us come across as another meddlesome special interest group scheming about how to steal politics "from the people."  We'd probably be more effective by operating as smaller groups broken down into various communites.  It would be more difficult for opposition forces to make us look like a political boogeyman of some sort than it would be if we were always massed together.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: JasonPSorens on February 05, 2003, 07:44:54 am
Regarding the often cited Presidential results in New Hampshire and Maine. I'm under the impression that both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were likely hurt by almost a personal grudge by many people in NH and ME against them. Could it have been their hottie tottie attitude and estate in Kennebunkport which rubbed many traditional New Englanders wrong? Could most any other Republican have done much better -- such as McCain did in NH?

Just on this point...There's a funny little anecdote I heard from one of the NPR reporters, who worked at the Concord Monitor for a while.  The Manchester Union-Leader is an iconoclastic conservative newspaper, a bit wacky apparently.  They endorsed Buchanan in both '92 and '96.  Anyway, the elderly lady who owns the Union-Leader wrote a front-page editorial when President Clinton came to the state near the end of his presidency.  The headline screamed, "CLINTON GO HOME!"  Protestors showed up to his speeches and held up the newspaper.

Those cussed New Englanders are tough to figure out, aren't they? ;)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on February 05, 2003, 08:49:36 am
The case for New Hampshire is made quite convincingly on this web page:  ;)


http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: DadELK68 on February 05, 2003, 12:13:11 pm
I find it disconcerting that Bob Smith, who was the most libertarian senator there was, was cast aside for Sununu, who is obviously much more liberal than Smith.  

Smith, with his quixotic presidential bid and subsequent poor judgement in leaving the Republican party and then returning, had become something of an embarassment. He showed too much emotional instability, appearing flaky and - particularly in the campaign and absolutely after his defeat - at times petty, immature and bitter.

Besides, considering some of Smith's environmental and social positions, I would hardly consider him "the most libertarian senator there was". Sununu is likely to come closer to this than did Smith.

Eric
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on February 05, 2003, 12:17:16 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:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: DadELK68 on February 05, 2003, 12:48:31 pm
I've posted this thought in another place or two, but believe that it is most appropriate to post it here as well:

When it comes to having privacy/seclusion, looking at numbers describing population density can be deceptive. Some have mentioned the crowding in some areas of the West and attributed it to the large Federal landholdings. Having grown up in ID and now living in NH, I suggest that seclusion isn't simply a matter of how much land you own, it's more relative.

For example - in much of the West, in areas where the vast majority of the population lives, the topography is mostly relatively flat valley floors and high plains, with the wealthier subdivisions spreading into the foothills. By far most of these areas involve houses on 1/4, 1/2, up to maybe 5 acre plots in the ritzier developments. If you want any degree of physical privacy/seclusion you have to find the rare topographically favorable spot, buy 20+ acres, and/or live in the mountains (which I love, but availability of which is also limited - particularly considering how much is federally owned).

Right now my family is in a house on only 2.7 acres, about 2 miles from the 'quaint New England' downtown area of a city of over 30,000 in Southern NH. We live on a quiet cul-de-sac with 4 other families in houses within ~100 yards, and with the exception of the house directly across the street (which we can partially see through the trees) we can't even see our neighbor's houses from ours. Lots within a mile of our house range from roughly 1/2 to 80+ acres.

At the same time, we live 1/3 mile from a park with a nice playground, about 1 mile (or 1/2 mile, if you cut through the woods) from our kids' schools, and about 1/2 mile from the nearest post office and fire station. There are a few ponds within 2 miles, one with both a town and private beach and others more secluded. I run on trails through the woods which are lightly used by horseback riders, joggers and cyclists, and frequently include the Robert Frost farm in my route.

In summary, in order to get a comparable amount of privacy/seclusion which the heavy forestation in New England provides, you have to own many, many more acres of land and/or live much further from any population centers in the West. For some people this difference will be very important in terms of balancing desire for privacy/seclusion with opportunities for employment and family quality-of-life issues.

In this sense the harsh winters can actually be a good thing as well - nothing makes people tend to keep to themselves as much as a good old midwinter Nor' Easter! After which the kids can skate and play hockey on the ponds, the ice fishermen are out in force, and kids can build snow forts and go tubing/sledding in the neighborhood.

Eric
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: BillG on February 05, 2003, 10:43:51 pm
Jason wrote:

Quote
Those cussed New Englanders are tough to figure out, aren't they?


That is because the Bushes' conservatism isn't of the Yankee variety (fiscally prudent, social libertarian, and local control) even though they have roots in Maine (Kennebunkport), Massachusetts (Andover prep), and Conneticut (Yale).

When it comes to presidential politics we are contrarians...what ever the pundis say - we vote the opposite!

BillG (not Gates)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: DadELK68 on February 06, 2003, 05:56:06 pm

When it comes to presidential politics we are contrarians...what ever the pundis say - we vote the opposite!

BillG (not Gates)

Bill has a good point - it's amazing how many people in NH make a sport of lying to pollsters, just to see how far off they might throw them...

Eric
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on February 06, 2003, 09:15:55 pm
Quote
In the west the next major town may be an hour away. The nearest major city could be a few hours away -- okay for an organized gathering, an impediment for a casual evening over beers or coffee.

Being able to quickly run down to the state capitol for appearances, testimony, to personally talk to legislators is also hugely valuable. To make filings with or get information from the many state bureacracies can be a hassle if you have to take time off work but it can be a barrier to political activism if you have to make an overnight trip because you have to appear personally or local activists in the capital city can't do it for you.
Joe, this concern about distances is far from "compelling", because our opponents will be laboring under the same difficulties.

One of the reasons government is smaller in states like Wyoming, may in fact be the distance. The testimony and arm-twisting of legislators by statists might be a lot less, precisely because it is so hard to get their squeaky wheels there to complain. Distance may be an advantage, not a disadvantage!

Unless people can explain to me why distance is harder on us than it is on "them", I don't buy this argument.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: JasonPSorens on February 07, 2003, 09:24:18 am
Well, I could see that it might be harder on us because we're trying to change things; we'll be building up momentum from essentially zero.  It will be our effort versus their inertia.  Long driving distances could benefit the side of inertia.

However, as mtPete noted, having population concentrated in a few areas, even if they are far apart from each other, could work just as well.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: thewaka on February 10, 2003, 11:01:29 am
Well, I could see that it might be harder on us because we're trying to change things; we'll be building up momentum from essentially zero.  It will be our effort versus their inertia.  Long driving distances could benefit the side of inertia.

But we won't be going for statewide races until after we have had success in local and house district races. I would hope by then that although we would still be offering candidates for change, that we would have proven our ideas and wouldn't be fighting such an uphill battle. And the "inertia" candidates will start feeling the pressure and have to campaign harder and/or change their platforms. So although a geographically smaller state will be quicker to get around in, I don't see that we will really be at a disadvantage in a large state like WY.

Diana
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on February 10, 2003, 11:20:22 am
Believe that because the state house districts are so small in NH, that if we really make a dedicated effort, we could become, if not a majority, a significant force there in a relatively short time.  See this as a major advantage to NH.

Dave
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: DadELK68 on February 11, 2003, 12:46:49 pm
Considering the fact that (as summarized so well by Michelle) NH leads in the number of elected LP officials (and almost assuredly in small-L libertarians as well), as well as the voting laws in NH with the 'at-large' House seats, NH is already off to a strong start.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on February 11, 2003, 07:59:32 pm
Quote
Well, I could see that it might be harder on us because we're trying to change things; we'll be building up momentum from essentially zero.  It will be our effort versus their inertia.  Long driving distances could benefit the side of inertia.

Hmmm. This is all very subjective, but first I don't think we will be starting from zero. We will (it's hoped) pick a state with a populace already pretty strong for freedom, and with institutions and interest groups that tend to support that (as long as we stay away from the really big cities).

The issue of momentum is another question. One could argue that the momentum away from freedom is already quite a bit larger in NH than in WY, which more than compensates for any problems the distance causes us in WY (if in fact it does cause problems).

What causes statist legislation? Maybe that's the item we should focus on. My feeling is that activists with a socialist outlook put pressure on legislators via testimony and election work. If that's so, a relatively inaccessible (via distance) legislature might be a big help. As would any factor favoring a citizen legislature (away from a professional legislature).

I don't know, we could go around and around on this without getting anywhere. What we really need are some case studies of how bad legislation got passed in various states, to see what is really driving it and where it can be "headed off at the pass".
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on February 11, 2003, 08:57:48 pm
Believe on the question of momentum, NH clearly leads the other states under consideration.   The Welcome to The Granite State Committee, and the various other programs established to highlight the benefits of NH as our new home shows me that the people there are freedom loving.

The argument I hear most often against NH is what if the statists from Mass. start moving in and take over...Hmmm ok...Mr and Mrs. Democrat and their 2 kids move to NH, and all their friends too!  But lets us examine why?  They are moving to NH because they love to pay high taxes, and have the government control their lives?  (come on folks)  How many people do you know that like to pay high taxes, and have the government control their lives?  

Thinking that those folks from Mass are coming because they want lower taxes and less government , just like you and I.  I will not fear them, but will welcome them to The Free State.

Saw on one of the posts today that someone said the FSP was the bus driving freedom loving people to their new home.  Well I'm hopeful that the bus stops in NH, because I believe it offers us our best chance for success!

In fact joined the NH Libertarian Party today, so when the bus does stop I will have a place to go, and begin the work ahead of us.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on February 12, 2003, 01:36:39 am
Quote
How many people do you know that like to pay high taxes, and have the government control their lives?  

No one. The problem is the people who want government to control others' lives.

marshall, are you suggesting that the political culture of a state cannot be changed for the worse by immigrants? That would be a pretty hard hypothesis to sell.

Statists may move to a state particularly because of a healthy economy that freedom engenders, not realizing (they never do) how their favorite policies harm that freedom and thus the healthy economy they came for. There are other things that will draw statists to a given state, even if that state has a tradition of freedom. "Live free or die" on the licence plate may annoy them, but not enough to stop them chasing those jobs.

And to suggest that everyone who prefers low taxes is by definition not a statist, that's another stretch.

There are two kinds of momentum, that toward freedom (which is doubtful exists anywhere in this country) and momentum away from it. Although NH is starting from a good base, its momentum away from freedom is high also. Could we bring that to a halt, turn it around with 20,000 activists?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on February 12, 2003, 02:35:47 am
Statists may move to a state particularly because of a healthy economy that freedom engenders, not realizing (they never do) how their favorite policies harm that freedom and thus the healthy economy they came for. There are other things that will draw statists to a given state, even if that state has a tradition of freedom.

An excellent point.  Numerous factors such as economy and climate (ask native Floridians about that last one) will draw all types of persons to the possible detriment of freedom, a basic pattern that we have seen before in history.  For instance, the "barbarians" who moved into Roman territory often did so because the Romans enjoyed a better lifestyle than they did.  These people had little interest in either becoming Romans or understanding what it was that had made the empire successful; they simply came to take advantage of what the Romans had, and their consuming influence aided the collapse of the empire.

We certainly do want to attract others to the fold; however, we would want them to come to us to be part of what we're trying to do, not just to take advantage of its benefits.  For this reason, I've always thought we were better off locating somewhere that, while not entirely isolated, is not exactly right next door either.  Those that make a greater effort to reach us will probably have greater reasons for doing so, and are more likely to make valuable contributions to our cause.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: DadELK68 on February 12, 2003, 12:23:22 pm
However, bear in mind that if there is an economic boom in any state, that will fuel immigration for jobs - and while in the large Western states this means in-state immigration almost without exception (employment only for residents, due to distance), while NH the more 'statist' people have the option of living in MA (or ME, or VT) and commuting to NH to work, shop and vacation.

The more 'free' we make NH, the less appealing it is for statists to move because they don't get the 'benefits' they want - I've known far too many liberal elitists in the Boston area who would never consider moving to NH (although they might open an office here) to fear that they will overwhelm the state. For many elitist statist, earning the appelation of "The Free State" along with the decentralization and deregulation sought by the FSP will be enough disincentive for them to stay away, just as many now mock the NH motto and lifestyle of "Live Free or Die".

In addition, if becoming more 'free' includes decreasing NHs already relatively low welfare benefits, then larger numbers of statists on the other end of the spectrum are likely to make the short move to MA in order to continue subsidized living. Thus, having a state increase in freedom provides incentive for some to move in, and for others to move out.

This will be true in any state, but has to be considered before assuming that an influx of statists will unduly threaten the FSP. NH could possibly even have some advantages: as suggested by Robert, a harsher climate (such as some fear in NH) may discourage less-motivated statists from moving in, while some of the much-touted milder climates in the West would provide less disincentive.

Eric
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on February 12, 2003, 02:07:15 pm
ZXCV

No, I am not suggesting that immigration could not change the political climate of a state, but I am suggesting that it would be highly unlikely.  Suppose you could make a weak case for VT, but other than the FSP'er, I know of no one who has moved, or committed to move, to a state because of the political climate.

NH is much more likely because of the political climate to attract the doers', the movers and shakers, business people, and the lovers of freedom. (yes an opinion, based on common sense)

What I stated was no one likes high taxes and the government running their lives.  Are you not now stretching my words?  I made no reference to statists. If this is not true would be happy to know how many people you know who want this or see statistical data to support your position.

You say that NH is becoming more statist, yet offer nothing to support your position, is this not a stretch?

Hey listen I support your right to your opinion, but I have a right to mine too.  Please forgive me if I don't see a statist under ever bed!

Oh by the way I'm Dave or David, take your pick.

David Mincin
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on February 12, 2003, 03:42:07 pm
Quote
I just talked with a couple from central New Hampshire (New Hampton). These folks were originally from Connecticut (21 years ago). We talked about New Hampshire politics, taxes, and the Massachusetts people moving in and changing the state.

Joe, c'mon. You can't possibly be basing your (inaccurate IMO) belief that statists are taking over NH on the opinions of a few tourists you have spoken to? I'm sorry, but the facts just don't support this conclusion! The freedom-movement in NH is strong and growing and thriving. How else do you explain all of this: http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on February 13, 2003, 01:12:30 am
Once again, I'd have to say that, while an economic boom anywhere except maybe Antarctica is bound to draw immigrants, I believe that distance factors in the west will curtail such numbers and make those states much less subject to being overwhelmed by undesireable elements.  The fact that the region is overall more liberty-friendly also means that those who did make the move would probably be a more desirable type of immigrant; not ideal perhaps, but at least accustomed to the "live and let live" philosophy of so many that reside in the west - a philosophy crucial to the underpinnings of libertarian success.

Statists not wanting to actually live in New Hampshire could easily stay in Boston, as has been suggested, and I feel the same could be said of statists in the Denver and Boulder areas with regard to Wyoming.  They could live in Colorado and have their statist paradise there, but still take advantage of the various advantages to be had in short jaunts into free country.  Some in nearby cities in Montana and Utah might do the same as well.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on February 13, 2003, 06:30:29 pm
Statists not wanting to actually live in New Hampshire could easily stay in Boston, as has been suggested,

However, statists are already moving into NH from Boston.  They are moving to NH for less expensive homes (although they are still expensive) and no sales tax.  Many of these MA statists still work in MA so they still have to pay state income tax.  This process was started a long time ago but keeps picking up speed.
Quote
and I feel the same could be said of statists in the Denver and Boulder areas with regard to Wyoming.  They could live in Colorado and have their statist paradise there, but still take advantage of the various advantages to be had in short jaunts into free country.  Some in nearby cities in Montana and Utah might do the same as well.
 Many people from Utah already go to Wyoming to make use of its freedoms.  Certainly, as the Salt Lake City area is expected to grow by 90% in the next 25 years this will continue.  In fact, the Salt Lake City area might move 5 or so miles closer to WY, at the same time (still close to an 1 1/2 away, though).

However, I do find the http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm page to be very nice.  However, all of the data, speadsheets, even taxes and less restrictive laws (WY is quite a bit less restrictive than NH) still favor WY.  WY even has move variety in its climate.  WY is also warmer and much closer to the center of the country.  Of course, the population and expense of election factors blow NH out of the water.  Soon, NH will have the 2nd highest population and the most expensive elections.  NH's house districts get bigger each time the census is taken and are expected to be even bigger after the next census.  Some of the districts already have over 20,000 people.  No to mention that the border state of VT is ranked the 3rd most statist state in the country.  On top of that, the state below NH, MA, has a national reputation for being one of the highest taxing states in the country and 1/4 of NH's house is made up of people from MA.  The pro-tax movements are gaining speed in NH as I write this.

Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on February 14, 2003, 08:04:49 am
Code: [Select]
However, statists are already moving into NH from Boston.  
FreedomRoad, what proof do you have that these are "statists" moving in? What proof do you have that they are having a negative impact on NH politics and long-term history of independence, small government, and low taxes? I keep seeing people presenting this assumption as true, but nobody backing it up with facts.

<<The pro-tax movements are gaining speed in NH as I write this.>>

How do you figure that? If anything, the complete opposite is true!
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on February 15, 2003, 05:43:21 am
Quote
Suppose you could make a weak case for VT, but other than the FSP'er, I know of no one who has moved, or committed to move, to a state because of the political climate.
I'm not worried about people who move for political reasons. I'm worried about people who move for jobs, who happen to be statists! It's undeniable this is something to be concerned about. Whether it's actually NH's or any other state's downfall is another point; like Michelle I think we ought to investigate that point some.

The problem is that people look at high job forecasts as "the more the merrier", but I think you can have too much of a good thing. We need ideally, enough jobs to employ 20,000 FSPers, and no more! We don't want those extra jobs sucking statists in. To me it looks like ID, NH and MT have too many jobs! It will be no help if NH's 105,000 projected jobs employs 20,000 FSPers and 85,000 statists.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: BillG on February 15, 2003, 10:00:31 pm
Quote
I'm not worried about people who move for political reasons. I'm worried about people who move for jobs, who happen to be statists!


My experience having moved into NH from MA 7 years ago is that most people move for a better "quality of life" in NH but continue to work in MA becuase there are many more high paying jobs.

"quality of life" means many different things to different people - better place to raise a family, more open space/less congestion, better housing, better recreational opportunities, etc.

Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on February 16, 2003, 11:47:48 am
Zxcv, your concern is well received.  Somehow I don't see jobs as a negitive!  The fact is, I believe so strongly in our ultimate sucess in NH, that if I was assured of employment I would be packing my bags today.   Who says those additional 85,000 projected jobs need be filled by statists?

Perhaps a good reason for the fsp or a similiar organization to continue to spread the word, on a national level, long past the time we reach 20,000.  In that case I see no reason why a majority of the 85,000 additional job couldn't be filled by freedom loving people like yourself.

Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on February 16, 2003, 11:14:13 pm
Well, those jobs will be filled by people who come looking for them. Employers don't ask prospective employees if they are statists or not.

One example I can think of that might be indicative is Idaho. As you know, Idaho has developed a somewhat unsavory reputation in the press. For whatever reason, the press likes to talk about all the racists and nuts in Idaho, so people think it's that way when it probably is no worse than any other place (my only run-in with a racist was in progressive downtown Portland, Oregon, a guy who didn't appreciate my interracial marriage).

But this very same unsavory reputation may be a factor preserving Idaho's freedom, which is about as high as it gets in this country. Statists (on the leftist side, anyway) just don't want to move there, even if there are a lot of jobs.

Hmmm, now I've convinced myself that a lot of jobs is not necessarily such a problem - in Idaho, anyway. But we do still need disincentives to keep statists from immigrating. My preference is to get into a state where we can put those disincentives in place; then when the economy ramps up (as a result of our freeing it), these other disincentives will hold the statists off.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 10, 2003, 11:06:53 pm
Low taxes and little in the way of social services should keep most statists away.  At least those looking for a free ride from the government.

A recent article by Chris Edwards "Holding The Line on State Taxes" (Mr. Edwards is The Director of Fiscal Policy at the Cato Institute) referring to the period 1980-2000 he wrote, "New Hampshire is notable as the lowest-tax state in the country and its 117 percent real income growth during the period."

Without jobs many of the younger folks, especially those with children will find much difficulity in making the move.  With all do respect taking care of your family is even more important that the FSP.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on March 11, 2003, 12:13:41 pm
Low taxes don't keep statists away. They don't want to pay them more than anyone else does. They want others to pay them. Statists would be repelled by a flat tax, but attracted by a so-called "progressive" tax.

Here's another thing from Cato:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa454.pdf

Quote
New Hampshire
Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat Legislature: Republican
Took Office: 1/97
Grade: D
Fiscal Performance Data
0.3% Average Annual Change in Real per Capita Direct General Spending through 2000
3.5% Average Annual Change in Direct General Spending per $1,000 Personal Income through 2000
0.4% Average Annual Recommended Change in Real per Capita General Fund Spending through 2003
-9.6% Average Annual Change in General Fund Spending per $1,000 Personal Income 2000-2002
9.88% Average Annual Change in Real per Capita Tax Revenue through 2000
13.4% Average Annual Change in Tax Revenue per $1,000 Personal Income through 2000
14.87% Average Annual Recommended Tax Changes as % of Prior Year’s Spending through 2003
2.97% Average Annual Recommended Change in General Fund Revenue per $1,000 Personal Income through 2003
2.49% Average Annual Change in Real per Capita General Fund Revenue 2000-2002
0 Change in Top Personal Income Tax Rate, proposed and/or enacted (% points)
-3.5 Change in Top Corporate Income Tax Rate, proposed and/or enacted (% points)
7 2002 Combined Top Income Tax Rates, personal plus corporate (*0.5)
2.5 Change in Sales Tax Rate, proposed and/or enacted (% points)
0 Change in Gas Tax Rate, proposed and/or enacted (cents per gallon)
37 Change in Cigarette Tax Rate, proposed and/or enacted (cents per pack)
1 Internet Tax (1=oppose; 0=support)

New Hampshire has long been the one
small-government foothold in the Northeast,
but that competitive edge has been under
assault as state lawmakers, with the encouragement
of the state supreme court, have
tried to enact a state income tax. New
Hampshire is the only state in the nation that
has neither a personal income tax nor a sales
tax. But the supreme court has ruled that
New Hampshire’s property tax system is constitutionally
flawed. Into this high-voltage
debate over school financing and taxes
arrived the first Democratic governor in
decades, Jeanne Shaheen. First elected in
1996, Shaheen easily won two reelections. In
2000, she refused to take the anti-income tax
pledge, which almost all successful candidates
have taken in the past, and which she
had signed in her first two runs. She won
reelection narrowly anyway. Shaheen has
been described as "Governor Betty Crocker"
for her penchant for moderation and compromise.
But the reality is that Shaheen has
dramatically increased the size of state government.
In fact, her first three budgets
allowed expenditures to rise substantially
faster than personal income growth. Her
Advancing Better Classrooms plan increased
kindergarten aid by 50 percent. She often
speaks of improving schools but is opposed
to real reforms. She vetoed a teacher tenure
reform bill and a limited voucher pilot program.
The Wall Street Journal has described
New Hampshire residents as "taxaphobic,"
but Shaheen isn’t. She signed a statewide
property tax measure, proposed to raise the
corporate income tax, and hiked the cigarette
tax. She has tried several times to contrive a
taxing scheme that would meet the court’s
approval and gain acceptance from the
Republicans in the legislature. That hasn’t
happened. She appointed a commission to
study New Hampshire taxes, which recom-mended
new taxes, including an income tax.
She proposed a 2.5 percent state sales tax, but
that was also rejected by the legislature. The
funding problem was finally resolved by
enacting a statewide property tax, and no
income or sales tax. That solution - probably
the best possible outcome under the circum-stances -
was arrived at in spite of Shaheen,
not as a result of her leadership. Shaheen has
a reputation, cultivated by the press, as a fiscal
conservative. But it is hard to reconcile
that with her actual big-budget and high-tax
policies during her three terms in office.
The more recent trends are not good.

I think the problem there in NH is that the teachers' union is powerful, with monopoly bargaining power and forced union dues. The NEA also has 29,000 members, second highest in our 10 states. So it will be very hard to keep them from raising NH's traditionally low taxes, it seems. FSP would have its hands full just holding the line. But it's true, holding the line would itself be pretty impressive, since the tax line is so low at this point.

Question is, given the recent trends, could we get into the state and help out, before the statists managed to boost taxes significantly?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 11, 2003, 01:24:51 pm
Ahh...Zxcv my friend I somehow knew I would be hearing from you!

I have read your post with some concern; however your information is a bit dated.  Mine is from a newpaper article dated 3/8/2003.  Did not the Dem's run on a income tax platform and get their butts kicked in the most recent election.   Sure I agree person freedom and liberty is under assault in NH, but I could say the same about the entire country and be correct too.  The folks in NH are under assault, but we are under assaut everwhere.  Think all things considered they are fighting the good fight, and we have not arrived yet to lend a hand.

Are we not back to the theory of "a statist under ever bed?"  NH has not income tax period, not progressive or flat.  Is that not a plus?   Personally I favor a consumption tax as the fairest tax.  In spite of the influx of statist that you continue to attribute to NH it remains the lowest taxed state in America. (state and local).  If all these statist keep coming how is that possible?

I would share your concern with the teachers unions in NH, but let us be realistic, wherever we land the teachers will be a problem.  Since I believe one of our top priorities should be to dismantle the state run education system, do you really believe that state teachers who depend on the state for their pay check will not fight us tooth and nail in any state?  Union or not they will be a problem.

NH has done a grand job of holding the tax line without us, imagine what they could do with our help!

>>Question is, given the recent trends, could we get into >>the state and help out, before the statists managed to >>boost taxes significantly

First I am not sure you have proven recent trends regarding NH, at least no more than recent trends all over the country.  I mean look, read the papers how many states are threatening to raise taxes, have heard little on NH about not having enough to pay her bills.  Perhaps it is because she has less bills to pay.  What a problem to have!

So my answer to your question is yes!  I would go one step further, lets start getting there right after the election.  Give the future job projections I feel we could all find a job, so why wait until we have 20.000 members?  Why wait 5 to 7 years?  Why wait until the statist show up at the door of your favorite state?

Dave
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 11, 2003, 01:33:28 pm
Oops!  Forgot Governer Jeanne Shaheen is not longer governor!  Guess they didn't much care for her program up NH way!
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on March 11, 2003, 02:53:31 pm
I thought my information was more recent than yours, Dave. Yours was from an article quoting a study 1980-2000, mine from a study 2000-2002. Or am I missing something?

Did the pro-tax folks get their butts kicked? I'm very happy to hear it. Maybe more details about that would be nice, or some links to articles.

Was Shaheen voted out or term-limited out?

Of course the teacher's union will fight us everywhere; that's not the point. The point is, do they have the tools and the numbers to do it? NH looks shaky in that respect.

So what's the situation with the boosted property tax? Any prospects to roll that back?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 11, 2003, 05:14:21 pm
>>>I thought my information was more recent than yours, Dave. Yours was from an article quoting a study 1980-2000, mine from a study 2000-2002. Or am I missing something?<<< :

I'll give you that one :)

Not being a resident of NH I hesitate to say to much about the current situtation, not following it on a daily basis, however do know the Dem. candidate in the last election was soundly defeated on a platform of a state income tax, and the Rep. hold large majorities in both houses.

Also that the NH Libertarians have a number of people running for office as we speak, and that's a start.

Perhaps someone with first hand knowledge could fill you in on the current property tax situation.

Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: JasonPSorens on March 11, 2003, 05:19:53 pm
Note that when we say that New Hampshire does not have an income tax, we mean only that it does not have a tax on personal income.  It does have taxes on business income.  Wyoming would be an example of a state that does not have income taxation of any kind.  Still, NH's overall tax burden is lower than that of any other state in the country (with the arguable exceptions of Alaska and South Dakota, depending on how you count).  But since most of the tax burden is carried through rather high property taxes, you could certainly argue that their tax structure is flawed, since capitation and consumption taxes are in theory superior to property & income taxes.  Wyoming, for example, has medium property taxes, a low sales tax, and severance taxes on mining.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 11, 2003, 06:03:07 pm
I wonder?  Generally low taxes mean more economic growth, and more jobs, but if that was always true what is the problem with WY and SD?

Depending on how you count?  Yes that is one of my main concerns.  The statistics say one thing, but the people say another with their feet.  The statistics said my beloved Steelers would be in the Super Bowl too!  But guess what?

NH continues one of the most free, has one of the best job outlooks, and is one of the most beautiful of the candidate states, so the choice for me is pretty easy.  
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: JasonPSorens on March 11, 2003, 06:56:46 pm
SD's job outlook is actually quite robust.  It is forecast to create as many jobs as Delaware, which is a somewhat larger state.

I think the reason for WY's poor job growth has to do with two things: natural resource dependence (what economists call the "Dutch disease") and isolation from major markets.  If WY had a major river or port access, its economy would have done much better in the past - and its population might be beyond our range by now. ;)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on March 12, 2003, 12:09:27 am
You have to wonder why ID's economy is so robust, though. It does not have much better access.

Maybe the answer about Wyoming was that, until not so long ago, there was always a better place to locate a business, because the state governments had not fallen so far into socialism and fascism. That may be no longer the case; most state governments are fiscal disasters now. Business is migrating overseas to an amazing degree.

The other obvious thing is the shortage of people. Can't have a strong economy without a lot of them. Probably what Wyoming really needed was a good solid gold strike in the 19th century!   ;)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on March 12, 2003, 12:50:00 am
Note that when we say that New Hampshire does not have an income tax, we mean only that it does not have a tax on personal income.  It does have taxes on business income.  Wyoming would be an example of a state that does not have income taxation of any kind.  Still, NH's overall tax burden is lower than that of any other state in the country (with the arguable exceptions of Alaska and South Dakota, depending on how you count).  But since most of the tax burden is carried through rather high property taxes, you could certainly argue that their tax structure is flawed, since capitation and consumption taxes are in theory superior to property & income taxes.  Wyoming, for example, has medium property taxes, a low sales tax, and severance taxes on mining.

NH does not have a personal wage tax but it does have personal income taxes.  NH taxes both interest (even from CDs) and dividends.  NH has two types of corporate taxes.  It has both a BUSINESS PROFITS TAX (corporate income tax) and a BUSINESS ENTERPRISE TAX which is considered by some to be a indirect personal income tax.  NH has 4 types of income tax compared to WY's zero types of income taxes.  See http://www.johnsoncpa.com/articles/no_income.html for more information.  Infact, WY and DE are known (and used) as tax havens by international corporations.

Wyoming, has low property taxes, in fact, its rates are some of the lowest in the country, whereas NH's are the highest in the country.  WY has a low sales taxes and is right next to MT, which has no general sales tax.

Also, the overall tax burden, you are refering to, I think, does not include corporate taxes.  These numbers can be fishy.  There have been reports that place TN was having one of the bottom 3 tax burdens in the country, before, but that is nonsense.  Taxes are much lower in WY, AK, SD, NH, and TX than they are in TN.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on March 12, 2003, 01:04:52 am
SD's job outlook is actually quite robust.  It is forecast to create as many jobs as Delaware, which is a somewhat larger state.

I think the reason for WY's poor job growth has to do with two things: natural resource dependence (what economists call the "Dutch disease") and isolation from major markets.  If WY had a major river or port access, its economy would have done much better in the past - and its population might be beyond our range by now. ;)

For the amount of people in WY, its economy is not doing poorly.  Wyoming as a state, is able to product more than enough jobs for its expected population growth.  This should continue if we increase the expected population growth i.e. the job growth will increase.  WY has low cost of living, average mean household income, and low unenpolyment.  The thing is, that Wyoming does not have many people or large cities, and like Jason said, uses natural reasouces to a great degree.  Because WY has so many natural resources, and has so few people it has not needed to develope large factories or tech companies.  Also, as Zxcv said, other states are just beginning to become peices of crap.  Wyoming, since the early 1980s has seen many international companies claim Wyoming as there home because it started the LLC movement and is still one of the best 3 states in the country for LLCs.  Slowing, the companies of Denver are starting to show up in WY.

NH, on the other hand does have high unenployment in some parts, like its major city.  NH's cost of living varies a great deal depending on if you are in the northern most part of the state or the southern most.  

The question of should NH raise property taxes or income taxes is a serious question.  One of the taxes will get rasied.  I was part of the large, statewide movement in 2002 in TN to prevent any tax increases.  We wanted to tax and we did fight well.  Well held at least 20 rallies at the capital.  We shut down the capital's phone and email systems with our messages, we faxed then, honked as loud and as long as we could every time they tried to raise taxes and fought them with all we had.  However, they did raise taxes.  They did not raise income taxes but they rose taxes, more than ever before.  Everything we could do and they still raised taxes by the largest amount, even.  The same thing has happened in states all over the country.  

NH already has 4 income tax, 2 property, and many sales taxes.  It will continue to raise all of them unless we move there.  However, our population is so small that it might not even stop the tied in a large population state like NH.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 12, 2003, 09:30:38 am
Lots of assumptins, few facts? Curious?  Are you sure you are not talking about NY?  All these taxes!  Curious that NH still has the lowest overal (state-local) tax bite.  Not my assumption, what the statistics say!!  Perhaps someone should change the name of this thread to OH MY WY!!! :)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on March 12, 2003, 11:41:16 am
Lots of assumptins, few facts? Curious?  Are you sure you are not talking about NY?  All these taxes!  Curious that NH still has the lowest overal (state-local) tax bite.  Not my assumption, what the statistics say!!  Perhaps someone should change the name of this thread to OH MY WY!!! :)

No, I was not talking about NY.  NH has 4 types of income taxes, I do not know how many NY has.  SD has the lowest income tax rates in the country, After WY and TX, I think, but you might want to look that up for a few hours.

If you want to change the name of the thread go right ahead.  Maybe, after looking at this thread you think WY is better for the FSP than NH.  Most of the people that have put a great deal of time studying the issues, agree with this thought by a large margin.  Truthfully, I have never even been to either state.  I have been to upstate NY and VT, and Boulder and Denver, CO, though.  Anyway, it is good that most people on this thread are using statistics.  I will continue to use statistics, also.  Although, subjective issues are important to some people.  

NH is a great state and I would love to work there.  I hear they have tons of opening in my choose job field, teaching.  In fact, I hear they have lots of growth in new schools and this is causing a debate between the people that want to raise income taxes and the people that want to raise property taxes.  A somewhat libertarian state would look to sales tax increases before it looked to property or income tax increases because as all libertarians know, consumption taxes are more fair.  But, NH choose to go the other rout and has very high property taxes and 4 types of income tax.  NH will have to lay in the bed it made.  It is too late for us to get ride of NH's income and high property taxes and replace then with a low sales tax (like WY has.)  This is just some of the baggage we will have to carry around with us in NH.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: JasonPSorens on March 12, 2003, 05:57:53 pm

Also, the overall tax burden, you are refering to, I think, does not include corporate taxes.  These numbers can be fishy.  There have been reports that place TN was having one of the bottom 3 tax burdens in the country, before, but that is nonsense.  Taxes are much lower in WY, AK, SD, NH, and TX than they are in TN.

The overall tax burden does include taxes of all kinds, as a % of state income (that's the measure on the State Data page and in the spreadsheets).  Another measure, which I think is less appropriate, is tax revenue per capita.  By that measure, SD comes out looking best (apart from the special case of AK).
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 12, 2003, 10:53:17 pm
I have been to WY.  Jackson Hole is nice if you have money.  Spent some time on a ranch in New Castle, WY.  a small ranch, 12,000 arces (that was the ranchers words not mine).  When I questioned her on this she said  "You have to have a lot of land in Wy if you want to make a living, because so much of the land is worthless."

I do appreciate the work you folks have put into compiling all the stats, truly, but to be honest with you one of the reasons I favor NH is because I have been to WY.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 13, 2003, 12:02:13 am
I don't think there will be a whole lot of us buying 12,000 acre ranches.   :)

And while Wyoming may not be New England post card material, that's not what makes it valuable.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 13, 2003, 08:30:55 am
What makes New Hampshire valuable for me is the lack of a general sales or income tax combined with the fact that I've got a well paying job here. Almost all of New Hampshire's taxes can be legally avoided through intelligent planning - this makes NH a great place to accumulate a fortune. There are so many ways to avoid paying the interest and dividends tax that anyone paying it is quite frankly a fool.

In Wyoming, I'd be stuck paying a sales tax every time I head to the store, a low paying job (assuming I could even find one), and boring scenery. I could live with all of that, however, if the Free State Project could ever work there. It cannot. Wyoming's Republican establishment controls the vote counting machinery making it hopeless for us to ever get the right people elected there.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on March 13, 2003, 09:08:26 am
Come on, George, it's not fair making that assertion without your report, or some other information, to back you up.  ::)  Let's get that report out so we can see what you are talking about. If a couple of Wyoming counties need their voting machines replaced, the FSP can take up a collection for them to do it!   :)

Anyway, the right people are to a fair extent already being elected there, which is why Wyoming rates so high on being freedom-friendly. And the statists there don't have the tools that statists in NH have (no "right-to-work in NH, and the NEA has both monopoly bargaining power and forced union dues). That's what driving all the pressure for higher taxes in NH right now. In Wyoming those tools don't exist; it's a right-to-work state and the NEA has no monopoly bargaining or forced dues.

And you know as well as I do that of all the taxes out there, libertarians consider sales taxes among the least undesireable. If there is a tax, it should be flat, and everyone should pay it. None of that "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree" stuff (as Senator Everett Dirksen used to say).

I will admit the NH collects an impressively low amount of revenue per capita, almost as low as SD.

It's quite a stretch to say the project could never work in Wyoming when it consistently scores at or near the top when you run the spreadsheet.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 13, 2003, 01:26:22 pm
Come on, George, it's not fair making that assertion without your report, or some other information, to back you up.  ::)  Let's get that report out so we can see what you are talking about. If a couple of Wyoming counties need their voting machines replaced, the FSP can take up a collection for them to do it!   :)

Anyway, the right people are to a fair extent already being elected there, which is why Wyoming rates so high on being freedom-friendly. And the statists there don't have the tools that statists in NH have (no "right-to-work in NH, and the NEA has both monopoly bargaining power and forced union dues). That's what driving all the pressure for higher taxes in NH right now. In Wyoming those tools don't exist; it's a right-to-work state and the NEA has no monopoly bargaining or forced dues.

And you know as well as I do that of all the taxes out there, libertarians consider sales taxes among the least undesireable. If there is a tax, it should be flat, and everyone should pay it. None of that "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree" stuff (as Senator Everett Dirksen used to say).

I will admit the NH collects an impressively low amount of revenue per capita, almost as low as SD.

It's quite a stretch to say the project could never work in Wyoming when it consistently scores at or near the top when you run the spreadsheet.

I have completed my part of the report and am waiting for my co-author to complete her part. Replacing voting machines in a few counties will not help.

If libertarians really consider sales taxes to be among the least undesireable type then I will have to disagree with them - sales taxes turn all kinds of retail businesses into agents of the state.

The worst part of New Hampshire's tax burden occurs at the local level where people have more of a stake and ability to control it.

Yes, Wyoming looks great on a speadsheet until the immigrants starve to death while their votes are stolen by the political machine there. Other than that Wyoming is great.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 13, 2003, 05:39:54 pm
Yes, Wyoming looks great on a speadsheet until the immigrants starve to death while their votes are stolen by the political machine there. Other than that Wyoming is great.

You know, I'm really surprised those cowboys out in Wyoming haven't rounded up a possey and strung up those nefarious vote thieves in Cheyenne.

Maybe they're out looking for something to eat instead.   ;D

As Zxcv has stated, sales taxes are flat taxes that are fair for everyone while income taxes are the primary tool of the redistributionist, "we'll punish you for succeeding" crowd.  They are the diesel fuel of the statist engine in this country.  Wyoming has no personal or corporate income tax at all, while it has been established that New Hampshire (while lacking an individual income tax) has several backdoor methods of taxing income.

The "right-to-work" issue is a huge matter by itself for me.  I absolutely refuse to live in a state where I can be forced to pay some fat-cat union bosses dues for the privilege of working, and then watch them turn those dues into political activism, most likely for causes I would spend my own activist time and money working against!  I don't see any need to fund my own opposition like this.  I'd rather pay an income tax.  At least an income tax doesn't funnel my money directly into the special interest bank accounts; they have to go and lobby for it first.

On the subject of unions, the teacher's union, as has already been pointed out, has some rather powerful tools as its disposal in New Hampshire.  Education freedom and reform is going to be a tough sell there with so many advocates for "the children" working so well-equipped.  And I'm certain that their friends in nearby MA, VT, ME, NY (the whole statist region) would be happy to lend them a hand in focusing all sorts of attention on us.  They'll be very close by, so it shouldn't be any problem to bus them in.

New Hampshire is also fighting budget problems and is seeing a demand for new education and transportation funding due to its high growth rate.  The issue of a state income tax is going to keep coming up as a liberal solution to the issue, and even if New Hampshire residents manage to defeat it, their local taxes are most assuredly going to go up.  More local control is a good thing, but how are we supposed to sell untested libertarian solutions to these problems in a crisis environment when people want simple, predictable answers NOW?

New Hampshire also has nearly one million voting-age inhabitants with little in way of working around the system.  

There are no term limits to shake up the political infrastructure (even Maine has these).  I know that you disagree with term limits, but there are quite a lot of arguments to illustrate how they help defend liberty.  CATO has a good article here:  http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-328es.html (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-328es.html)

New Hampshire lacks the initiative or referendum, which equip the people to work around a stubborn legislature with entrenched interests.  Again, even more statist Maine has the initiative.

The lack of initiative and referendum, term limits, and right-to-work laws in such a higher population state create an atmosphere where it will be very difficult for even 20,000 activists to crack the system.  Politicians will be entrenched and powerful, and opposition lobby groups will enjoy the fact that their own rivals are directly contributing to them.

But, hey, at least we won't have to wear seatbelts!  We might want to keep those helmets on though...for protection while butting our heads up against the system.

By contrast, Wyoming:

- has no personal or business income tax
- has the initiative and referendum
- has right-to-work laws
- has term limits
- has a state surplus (no demand for more taxes, in fact, they're considering lowering their 4% state sales tax)
- deprives the teacher's unions of more power than any other candidate state
- has the lowest voting-age population to deal with
- has a lower cost of living which more could afford
- has a population that consistently votes for small government candidates, not just when the income tax debate comes up
- has a very friendly gun and homeschool culture
- has less expensive elections
- has liberty-friendly neighboring states - it's not boxed in
- is distant enough from the liberal meccas that statists won't find it easy to help their comrades there
- has grocery stores and a moderately low starvation rate  ;D
- has a very low outrage rate considering the amount of vote-thievery going on there  ;D
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 13, 2003, 08:12:28 pm
My understanding was that the intent of the statistics was to determine the 10 states best suited for our purposes, and to that end, job well done.  Are you now saying we are to chose a state, simply because it has good stats?  Have you ever looked at your favorite team, especially their glowing stats and be certain they would win?  Ooops and then they didn't! (the human factor)  Oops forgot that! Spent a lot of years in the investment business, and followed the stock analysis,  wow what numbers stock x and y are sure winners.  Oops they went in the tank (human factor). Oops forgot that!

Have already been informed, by you statistic folks that livablity and people have  0   credibility.  Hmm, been around the block a few times in my life and have found that the only thing that matters is people!

Are we not really back to the same old argument People vs statistics?

While you talk numbers I see action in NH.  You see numbers I see people doing, getting involved, building!
The Welcome to The Granite State Committee, promoting FSP, working on a system to help us find jobs and a place to live.  I see action not talk, passing out fliers, maning phones, knocking on doors, and electing freedom loving people.

I see excitment, enthusiasm, the will to win.  People will win our quest for freedom and the people of NH have begun the fight, and they  have my support.  Isn't the Free State Program really about people?

Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 13, 2003, 08:30:37 pm
There is a bill working its way through the NH legislature right now to make NH a right-to-work state. Quite frankly though, a right-to-work law does not seem to me like something libertarians ought to support. If a factory and a union reach an agreement that all labor in the factory will be union labor, does the state really have any business intervening in this arrangement?

I'm not sure how much practical effect this will have in New Hampshire anyway - not much of the workforce is unionized.

Regarding vote counting, how would those cowboys know whether thier votes are being stolen? This all happens behind closed doors and Wyoming law does not allow for the public to observe the process.

Regarding the NH income tax, do you honestly think the Democrats would try that idea again any time in the next ten years after what happened to them in the 2002 election? You must be kidding.

Regarding your idea that "Education freedom and reform is going to be a tough sell there with so many advocates for "the children" working so well-equipped", I don't think you could be more wrong. NH taxpayers are so fed up with high property taxes that they are willing to consider all kinds of alternatives which might help reduce their tax bills.

NH has a different type of term limits than the statist type you prefer. We pay our representatives and senators $100 per year. At that salary they don't have much incentive to hang around for too many terms. Incumbency rates are not high in New Hampshire.

NH has a rather unique form of intitiative and referendum - if our elected officials are not doing what we want we simply re-elect the entire government (from governor on down) as often as every two years. I believe only one other state does this.




Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on March 13, 2003, 09:22:30 pm
Quote
The "right-to-work" issue is a huge matter by itself for me.  I absolutely refuse to live in a state where I can be forced to pay some fat-cat union bosses dues for the privilege of working, and then watch them turn those dues into political activism, most likely for causes I would spend my own activist time and money working against!
There are actually ways around that, even if you're in a non-right-to-work state. There is the "deauthorization election":
http://www.nrtw.org/d/deauth.htm

There is also a way for individual employees to not pay union dues for political purposes:
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_4.htm

Somehow I don't believe these are actually exercised that much. Probably more info is there in that site, it is a very good site.

Quote
There is a bill working its way through the NH legislature right now to make NH a right-to-work state. Quite frankly though, a right-to-work law does not seem to me like something libertarians ought to support. If a factory and a union reach an agreement that all labor in the factory will be union labor, does the state really have any business intervening in this arrangement?
George, I can certainly understand this point of view, in fact I share it somewhat. After all, the employee can go work somewhere else if he doesn't like being a union member (voluntary or forced).

However we get down to the old question of "initiation of force". The fact is, these unions do lobby government to place all sorts of regulations on employers. And anyway, the national (and thoroughly unconstitutional) labor relations act, mentioned in that web site, was the thing that got the whole country in the default mode of not-right-to-work in the first place, such that states like Idaho and Wyoming were forced to pass right-to-work laws to counter it. They even tried back in the Truman administration to pass a law (it came very close) that would have made it impossible for any state to make itself a right-to-work state. Read the history in that site, it is very interesting. So the bottom line as far as I'm concerned, is that there is ample initiation of force already from the unions, and right-to-work laws are a reasonable self-defense response to it.

Quote
I'm not sure how much practical effect this will have in New Hampshire anyway - not much of the workforce is unionized.
NH has about 12,000 NEA members, about twice as many as WY. I don't know about general union membership. Can you dig out those figures?

Quote
Regarding the NH income tax, do you honestly think the Democrats would try that idea again any time in the next ten years after what happened to them in the 2002 election? You must be kidding.
Don't worry, they don't give up that easy! In Oregon we have defeated the sales tax something like 9 or 10 times in the last 100 years. Guess what the ruling class is pushing hard now? And this is just 2 months after the state, 55% to 45%, defeated a referendum to "temporarily" increase the income tax a couple percent (we're already at a 9% rate!   :o  )

They keep pushing and pushing and pushing. All you ever hear is that we are betraying our children. It wears you down.

I think Keith could tell you, even after that famous tax revolt in Tenn. recently, they still slid a tax hike in here and there. And they are always moving revenue collection to user fees - but they never somehow manage to cut the broad-based tax after doing that (a favorite tactic in Oregon).

I think the voter resistance in NH is admirable, probably the best in the nation. But the other side is not down and out, by any means. There are all sorts of ways to squeeze money from the people.

Quote
NH has a rather unique form of intitiative and referendum - if our elected officials are not doing what we want we simply re-elect the entire government (from governor on down) as often as every two years. I believe only one other state does this.
Come on, George. When was the last time the entire government was thrown out? Or even 50% of it?  ::)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 13, 2003, 09:51:42 pm
Continue to use your mind, use your logic, use your numbers.  Why has  libertarians  consistently elected few if anyone?  
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on March 13, 2003, 10:52:07 pm
Quote
Have already been informed, by you statistic folks that livablity and people have  0  credibility.  Hmm, been around the block a few times in my life and have found that the only thing that matters is people!

Are we not really back to the same old argument People vs statistics?
Well, there are different ways to look at this.

I actually agree, numbers are not everything. For example, there are probably infinite ways to measure a state. Who knows if we have enough measures to give us a reliable prediction for success?

And what about the numerous things that are hard or impossible to quantify? Or bias in the sources generating our numbers?

That's why I keep on adding rows to my big spreadsheet. I want to know everything that can practically be found and quantified about these states. The more I have, the more confidence I have.

The problem with just going with feelings, is that they vary from person to person. There is nothing to nail them down with. I look at DE and just laugh, but I know there are people here who think DE is the best state. Both of us are relying to a certain extent on what our feelings say.

You say the people are important. I do too, crucially important. I don't live in Wyoming, but Oregon. Eastern and Western Oregon are as different as East coast and interior state. I know the feeling I get when I go over to Eastern Oregon; it is a feeling that I really like the people and they like me. They are just more down-to-earth, and not taken with statist blather. So, thinking eastern Oregon is going to be a lot like Wyoming or Idaho, I tend to conclude, by my feelings, that these states would be good for us. I know the numbers say Idaho would be a problem, but the numbers only reinforce my feelings about Wyoming.

Again, I tend to think livability is unimportant, within the range we are talking about here (we are not considering moving to Africa, after all). So when I run the spreadsheet I don't put much weight on it. But I agree, it will take a lot of adjustment for folks who are used to a large range of jobs and city amenities, in WY far more than NH. That is a given. People have to decide how important this is to them.

All I can say is, getting back to those feelings, my spirits lift when I drive up the Columbia Gorge toward eastern Oregon. Wide open spaces, friendly people, no pushy drivers or traffic jams, sunny skies, lots of hunting and camping and rock-hounding opportunities, clear night skies where you can see a million stars. When I drive back to Portland, my spirits sink. Everything closes in, irritated people in a rat race, nasty drivers, traffictraffictraffic, cloudy skies and rain, yeah some parks with lots of people in them, 2 or 3 stars if you are lucky. That's what my feelings say to me.

Obviously, different people will have a different take on these things.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 14, 2003, 12:11:21 am
Have already been informed, by you statistic folks that livablity and people have  0   credibility.  Hmm, been around the block a few times in my life and have found that the only thing that matters is people!

Are we not really back to the same old argument People vs statistics?

Well, for one thing, I would submit that statistics are not entirely divorced from the issue of people.  You can tell a great deal about a state's people by virtue of various statistics: political affiliation, levels of disaffection, voting history, initiative measures, etc...  All of these things, as well as others, can tell you much about people.  In fact, most of our statistics relate to people.

As for livability, this is pretty much in the eye of the beholder.  None of these states are the dark side of the Moon though, and if giving up a few amenities is the price of starting this project out on the best possible foundation, then I believe it would be worth it.  And Wyoming is not even the extreme when it comes to lack of amenities.  It's proximity to Denver and Salt Lake City place it far closer to "civilization" than Alaska, North Dakota, or Montana, for instance.

Quote
While you talk numbers I see action in NH.  You see numbers I see people doing, getting involved, building!
The Welcome to The Granite State Committee, promoting FSP, working on a system to help us find jobs and a place to live.  I see action not talk, passing out fliers, maning phones, knocking on doors, and electing freedom loving people.

A few libertarians selling their wares to a few more libertarians is a far cry from a few libertarians selling libertarianism to a whole lot of statists.  The NHLP is well organized and clever, but the issue of a free state will not be settled by how impressive the FSP finds the NHLP.  It will be settled by how effective the FSP and NHLP could be among the masses of New Hampshire, which is a matter that involves more than a little posturing and power of positive thinking.

We also need to be careful of what the bottom line emphasis is here:  The FSP is concerned about finding the best state for liberty.  The NHLP is concerned about how to get the FSP into New Hampshire.  These goals are not exactly parallel.  The best state for liberty may or may not have anything to do with what that state's LP is doing for the FSP.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 14, 2003, 01:21:23 am
There is a bill working its way through the NH legislature right now to make NH a right-to-work state. Quite frankly though, a right-to-work law does not seem to me like something libertarians ought to support. If a factory and a union reach an agreement that all labor in the factory will be union labor, does the state really have any business intervening in this arrangement?

Zxcv answered this one already along the lines of what I was thinking.

Quote
Regarding vote counting, how would those cowboys know whether thier votes are being stolen? This all happens behind closed doors and Wyoming law does not allow for the public to observe the process.

If it's all happening behind closed doors where no one can observe the process, then how do you know that votes are being stolen at all?

Personally, I've never heard of any voting controversy in Wyoming.  The electorate there seems rather content with its system.  The recent election of a Democrat governor in a Republican dominated state, as well as the success of the WYLP, makes me think that the system cannot be too corrupt or such events would not have taken place.

That said, I do believe in what are called "sunshine" laws, and this would probably be something that we would look at changing in Wyoming.  

Quote
Regarding the NH income tax, do you honestly think the Democrats would try that idea again any time in the next ten years after what happened to them in the 2002 election? You must be kidding.

George, Tennesseans showed up in Nashville by the thousands, threw rocks through the state house windows, and generally laid siege to the place in response to threatened tax increases.  But this didn't stop the politicians from bringing this issue up again and again and again in spite of repeated, wide-spread protests.

Think back to 1994 as well.  The GOP kicked the Democrats out of power on Capitol Hill for the first time in forty years, and the very next year the Democrats came back and won one of their biggest victories of the Clinton years: blaming the Republicans for the 1995 government shut-down.  The GOP never really did recover from that until 2002, and it came right on the heels of one of their biggest successes.

There is no true defeat for such people in politics.  There is only "next time."

Quote
Regarding your idea that "Education freedom and reform is going to be a tough sell there with so many advocates for "the children" working so well-equipped", I don't think you could be more wrong. NH taxpayers are so fed up with high property taxes that they are willing to consider all kinds of alternatives which might help reduce their tax bills.

Education is the very last thing that most people will tolerate any real interference or experimentation with, and the NEA in particular is excellent at exploiting that weakness.  With so much of property taxation going to pay for education, they'll probably have to have something in place before they'll agree to any sort of reductions, and the path of least resistance is increasing other forms of taxation.  Privatization and other forms of more libertarian reform probably won't be given much of a hearing due to their much more controversial and experimental nature.

But no one would be happier than me if I were to be proven wrong about that.

Quote
NH has a different type of term limits than the statist type you prefer. We pay our representatives and senators $100 per year. At that salary they don't have much incentive to hang around for too many terms. Incumbency rates are not high in New Hampshire.

Well, you can make the argument that voting and laws of any kind are all statist because they force at least some to conform against their will.  The problem is trying to figure out how to work within this imperfect world to promote liberty to the fullest extent possible.  Sometimes it just boils down to simply instituting various means of defending yourself.  Term limits is an example of this.

I don't know how long the New Hampshire legislature meets each year, but $100 a year seems like it would mean that legislators would either have to be independently wealthy or at least have another source of income.  I don't think that legislators ought to get wealthy off of their public service, but it seems like it ought to sustain them a bit more so they can devote more of their time to the work.  More people could probably afford to participate if that were the case, but I suppose it would vary from person to person.

Quote
NH has a rather unique form of intitiative and referendum - if our elected officials are not doing what we want we simply re-elect the entire government (from governor on down) as often as every two years. I believe only one other state does this.

I would have to ask the same question as Zxcv: how often does this actually take place?  

And also, electing the entire government seems like it would take an overwhelming level of support that could be difficult to get in a larger population.  Initiatives only require a certain % of the voters to be considered, and then they go up for a general vote anyway.  It seems like this would be a simpler way of getting things done.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 14, 2003, 09:15:07 am
Right now, today, as we speak, the people, most of the people of NH are angry!  Angry about taxes, and the public school system.  The perfect time for us to use these issues to gain support, elect legislators, spread the word of freedom!  One must have issues that excite people, we will not win elections without the support of many more than our numbers.

You would submit that sometime in the distant future we move to some sparcely populated state, develope some yet undefined political structure, and begin to fight for freedom.

Yet today as we speak, freedom is under assault in all corners of our country, or am I to believe that freedom is not under assault in sparcely populated areas, and they will await patiently for our arrival?

NH offers us the opportunity to begin the fight now!
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 15, 2003, 12:41:29 am
You would submit that sometime in the distant future we move to some sparcely populated state, develope some yet undefined political structure, and begin to fight for freedom.

Where do you get this from?  

"Distant future?"  We could start our migration to Wyoming immediately following the vote.  With New Hampshire, we're going to have to wait until we have some clue that we're going to get the full 20,000 or else come very close.  

"Sparcely populated state?"  This is an advantage for us.

"Develope some yet undefined political structure?"  We'd be following roughly the same plan in either New Hampshire or Wyoming.

Quote
Yet today as we speak, freedom is under assault in all corners of our country, or am I to believe that freedom is not under assault in sparcely populated areas, and they will await patiently for our arrival?

You've totally lost me here.

Quote
NH offers us the opportunity to begin the fight now!

And what about this from the above?:  "Yet today as we speak, freedom is under assault in all corners of our country..."  

The "fight" has already begun and can be fought in any state of the Union.  New Hampshire does not have a patent on the fight for liberty, to my knowledge.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 15, 2003, 09:36:56 am
And after the election you and your couple of NH bashers will move!  Hundreds have already committed to move to NH after the election, and we will immediately be able to help elect freedom loving candidates.

You will begin to organize, begin to campaign, begin to make friends, and establish contacts, it's already happening in NH!

While you talk, incredible things are happening in NH!

You would propose we make a decision solely based on numbers.  I would submit people do not make decision solely based on numbers!

For those out there who want something besides just numbers to make your decision may I suggest you visit (http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 15, 2003, 01:32:14 pm
And after the election you and your couple of NH bashers will move!

Forgive my impertinence.  I was unaware that weighing New Hampshire by the same criteria as the other states made me a "basher."   I should have known better by now.   ::)

I'm beginning to think New Hampshire's motto should be changed to "Live HERE or die!"  I just hope that you guys don't try selling your agenda in New Hampshire the same way that you try selling New Hampshire in this forum.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 15, 2003, 02:44:41 pm
Forgiven ;)!  

I will concede that numbers have their place in decision making, and I'm sure when you got your education you pulled out a stat sheet, looked were are the jobs were and use that to guide your education!

Alas life would be so easy, if all we had to do is pull out a spread sheet, take a peek,  pick the top job, pick the top state, hey while we are at it we could even pick a mate that way!  We would all be wealthy, happy and free!  But alas my friend, life does not work that way.

As we approach perhaps the most important decision any of us will every make, you would have us make that decision soley based on numbers.  Is that how you make your decisions?  Hmm interesting indeed!

To decide were we will live, raise a family, grow old, and yes establish a free state.  If you think that kind of decision should be based only on numbers, hey go for it!

Ten states have been chosen using your numbers to have a fair chance of attaining our mutual goal of Freedom in Our Life Time!

Look forward to working with you in NH :)



Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 15, 2003, 06:57:57 pm
ELECTIONS ARE DECIDED BY THE NUMBERS!
50.1% beats 49.9%
And THAT is the bottom line which determines the success or not of the Free State.

The process of tabulating the votes plays a critical role in determining who gets the 50.1% and who gets the 49.9%. Of the ten candidate states, New Hampshire's election laws provide the best protection against vote counting fraud.



Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on March 15, 2003, 08:45:33 pm
And after the election you and your couple of NH bashers will move!  Hundreds have already committed to move to NH after the election, and we will immediately be able to help elect freedom loving candidates.


I hope this is not true.  According to populations percentages 4,500 in WY can do around as much good as 10,000 in NH.  Yes, WY needs less than 1/2 the people NH needs.  What does this mean?  If the FSP only gets 15,000 it will fail as a project and likely the back-up plan of moving to Wyoming, will take over.  This means that all of those people that moved to NH before it got 20,000 will be out of the loop.  They will not be helping to create a free state and will have wasted all of the money it cost them to move.  However, if WY is picked and it does not get 20,000, the people that move early will not have to move again.  They will, in NH.

Please, listen to me, Please, no one, move to NH until 20,000 people have signed up unless you want to move again.  I would hate to see 100s of FSP members waster 1000s of dollars that they could give to the freedom movement on having to move a second time.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 15, 2003, 10:51:37 pm
FreedomRoad it is so refreshing to hear someone speak from their heart.  Believing your handle is what you are about...A believer in freedom!

Myself being much older than most of us, have did the free spirit thing of the 60's and 70's, traveled the lenght and breath of this beautiful country we live in, know that there is so many freedom loving people out there. talked to many of them :).

Geez, your probably right 4,500, could do more in some state with few people, than 10,000 in NH, but is it fair to ask people to give up all?  Why can't we have both a beautiful place to live and freedom to?

"Yo yea with so little faith."  Should we sell ourselves short?  Give up before we have really begun?  Settle for some place no one really want to go to, simple because the numbers say we can do it with less people?

The mission of FSP is to recruit 20,000 liberty loving, committed political activitists.  Saw something today that we are averaging 12.5 new people a day, and at that level we will reach 5,000 by late August.  Not bad for a movement that started just a couple years back.  If we continue to tell our story I am confident we will reach our goal and much more soon!

Should we wait to move?  You make a good point.  But what I would say to that.  Do you believe?  No bull shit but really believe?  I know that we are the last chance to turn the tide of government being in total control of our lives, but I also know that people need a place to live a comfortable life.

Also know the people in NH are with us and welcome us, and will work with us.  All I know from the other states is that the numbers look good.

So yes knowing the potential downfalls, once NH wins the election I will move, I will join in there fight.  I am confident that FSP will reach 20,000, and will go much beyond that.  I am confident that NH is the best place considering all,  for us to find freedom in our live time!
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: NJLiberty on March 15, 2003, 11:35:46 pm
FreedomRoad,

If the FSP reaches 15,000 and it fails it will only be because people refused to move. The only difference between 15,000 and 20,000 members is 33% of the FSP members getting off their behinds and signing up one person each. If we can't get that level of activism out of 5000 FSP members it won't matter where they go because they won't do anything once they get there. And given the current sorry state of recruitment, I am not hopeful that there are many activists in the first 2800 FSP members. If each of them got just one person signed up we could be voting next week, instead of a projected August date.

Getting the people to move into a state quickly is much more important than  the total number of current FSP members. If the state is libertarian oriented we can easily make up the numbers once we get there and get started. If it isn't, 20,000 people are not going to make enough of a difference for us to succeed. I would rather go with 10,000 people to a state like NH where the LP wants us, and the people have a libertarian tradition, rather than go with 20,000 to a state where the people are indifferent and the LP barely exists.

The only place 15,000 hurts us more than 20,000 is for those who use it as an excuse not to move and those people are not going to help us anyway whether they come or not.

George
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: NJLiberty on March 15, 2003, 11:49:01 pm
To be honest Marsh Robert, I don't intend to wait for the vote. Right now I am stuck in NJ and will gladly move to NH ahead of time. It is far and away the best place for the FSP and I want to be able to help pave the way for my fellow porcupines as they move there.

If the others can't see that and by some unfortunate accident select another state, it would be easy enough to move again. God knows the property in most of the western states isn't worth a hill of beans. There's a reason those states have such low populations.

George
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 16, 2003, 12:19:40 am
If it's all happening behind closed doors where no one can observe the process, then how do you know that votes are being stolen at all?

Read the book "Votescam" by James and Kenneth Collier - that will give you the answer to your question.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on March 16, 2003, 12:31:13 am
If it's all happening behind closed doors where no one can observe the process, then how do you know that votes are being stolen at all?

Read the book "Votescam" by James and Kenneth Collier - that will give you the answer to your question.

i cannot answer for Robert H, but I find your answer puzzleing.  Do you really expect a person to read an entire book to answer such a short and nonlife-changing question?  
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 16, 2003, 04:14:00 am
marshrobert1,

I've stated several times now that I believe there is more to the state choice than "simple numbers" although, again, I believe that some of the numbers can tell us much about the people in a given state.

Yes, the current ten candidate states were narrowed down using the various numbers you describe, but this does not mean that all things were then made equal.  There are still important differences between them and issues that still have to be addressed.  All ten states do not offer us the same chance of success.

By "people," you seem to be referring back to the NHLP, those who have impressed you so much that you now seem to believe the fight for liberty cannot be won elsewhere, if it is even taking place elsewhere at all.  Again, I would remind you that the FSP is trying to find the best state for liberty while the NHLP is trying to get the FSP into New Hampshire.  This is libertarians marketing to other libertarians, not libertarians marketing to statists.  They are not parallel efforts.  What it takes for the NHLP to lure the FSP into New Hampshire is not what it will take for the NHLP and FSP to win the state of New Hampshire as a free state.

As for being comfortable and free as well, do you really think that is impossible anywhere else other than New Hampshire?  Have you ever investigated New Hampshire's weather or compared it to the other states?

George,

I will say again that I see no evidence of voter fraud in Wyoming.  I would ask you again how a state where voter fraud is being perpetrated by the majority (GOP dominated) could just have elected a Democrat governor and given major party status to the LP?

I'm sorry, but I see no evidence that even suggests it.  

As for people moving after the vote, I agree that it is important, but I believe it is only productive if a small enough state is chosen.  We have several of them:  WY, AK, VT, ND, and possibly SD and DE.  Otherwise, we do not know that we will have the numbers to succeed, and it would be reckless to move without having some assurance that what we're doing will actually amount to something substantive, in this case the FSP's goal: a free state.  Not a couple of free counties or towns, but a free state.  If it's possible, this is what we should try for, and it's more likely to take place in some states with fewer members than it would take in others.

Nor do I believe that we're simply going to "make up" the numbers after we move.  As you yourself just said, if we can't get those numbers now (from all 50 states) what makes us think we'll get them later (from just the one state)?  And your reference to a libertarian enough population indicates that you have just the one state in mind there.  Although I'm sure you'd continue to lobby those in other states as well.

What all of this makes me ask myself is this:  "Why would any such group be trying so desperately to get people to move ahead of, and contrary to, the FSP's own expectations, if the FSP's best interest is what they have in mind and not their own?"

What it makes me think is that the NHLP and company is clearly trying to create its own little New Hampshire project out of the FSP's membership.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be pushing people to move immediately after the vote when the FSP's own stated expectations are that this would not happen.  These expectations have been clearly stated in the FSP's FAQ and re-confirmed here in this forum.  No other group from any candidate state, that I know of, is pushing the membership like this, or blasting anyone who questions them.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 16, 2003, 08:57:21 am
So now there is diabolical plot by the NHLP to destroy the FSP!  Why?  Because they support us, welcome us, would like us to join them I their fight for freedom?  Sounds like an act  desperation on your part to me.

Why do you continue to attempt to turn positives into negitives?  The tried and true method of libertarians since the beginning, and a failed course I might add.

If I chose to fight the fight for freedom, now and not 5 years hence, again you turn that into a negitive?  Incredible!!!  Is it not my choice to move when I chose or is the illegal  :) to move until you say!  I see nothing in the FSP charter that say we must wait, but only that we are honor bound to move in the 5-7 year time frame.

What's up with this fall back plan?  When did this become a part of the FSP mission?  More defeatist jargon!  Do you truly fear we will not reach 20,000, and therefore have to chose a state with the least people, no other options?  Our plan is proper, our idea is sound, and I know we well reach 20,000 and more!



Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 16, 2003, 09:16:21 am
Is the NHLP putting LP politics ahead of Free State realism?
A real Free State after the FSP folds may be secondary to the NHLP.
They may do anything to increase their membership numbers.
This would be like typical LP campaigns which are publicity stunts.
The NHLP may think nothing of sacrificing thousands of FSP activists
in a futile effort in a fast growing state of way over one million people.
They may be willing to gamble with throwing away the Free State dream
just to get a little increase in their NHLP membership.

Not in the least. The LPNH supports New Hampshire for the Free State Project because New Hampshire obviously the best choice of the ten candidates. NH state law guarantees the opportunity for a clean election and New Hampshire has the smallest house districts in the nation.

I sat in on an LPNH exectutive board meeting last Tuesday. One of the board members brought up the question of "Would we support this migration if the FSP members came here and and created a competing party?" Unanimously, the board members said "yes".

BTW - Every single member of the LPNH executive board is a member of the Free State Project and the LPNH was the second state LP to endorse the project. As far as I can tell, it is the only state LP making a serious effort to attract the FSP. What is the matter with Wyoming's LP?  ???
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 16, 2003, 10:05:35 am
So now there is diabolical plot by the NHLP to destroy the FSP!  Why?  Because they support us, welcome us, would like us to join them I their fight for freedom?  Sounds like an act  desperation on your part to me.

Destroy the FSP?  No, that's not what I said, nor did I imply it.  You're pulling that out of the air.  Go back and read it again.

Quote
Why do you continue to attempt to turn positives into negitives?

I don't know that I've done that.  Perhaps you can give me an example.

Quote
If I chose to fight the fight for freedom, now and not 5 years hence, again you turn that into a negitive?  Incredible!!!  Is it not my choice to move when I chose or is the illegal  :) to move until you say!  I see nothing in the FSP charter that say we must wait, but only that we are honor bound to move in the 5-7 year time frame.

Go read the FAQ sometime.  You'll find it helpful in many areas.  It has nothing to do with what I say personally.  The expectation is that we do not move until around 20,000.  And it makes perfect sense.  Where waiting comes in is where the larger states are concerned because we need to be certain that we have enough people to have a real chance at a free STATE.  What doesn't make sense to you about that?

This doesn't just affect New Hampshire.  It would also affect Maine and Idaho, and probably Montana, South Dakota, and Delaware as well.  The other states are small enough that we could probably start moving right away with a greater degree of confidence that we could achieve the goal.

Quote
What's up with this fall back plan?  When did this become a part of the FSP mission?

As I said, go read the FAQ.  This is hardly new although there has been more discussion of it lately - with the aim of possibly clarifying the issue to provide a more formalized plan about how it might be done.  The idea that we shouldn't move before 20,000 is already pretty clearly stated there though.

Your confidence is admirable, and I'm not trying to be defeatist here.  All I'm doing is pointing out that we should be careful not to rush into anything if we want to realistically pursue the project's end goal.  The same would apply to states other than New Hampshire; it's just that New Hampshire seems to have the largest faction devoted to going there immediately after the vote, if not prior to it.  Therefore, what discussion there is of the issue is focusing on New Hampshire.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: NJLiberty on March 16, 2003, 10:08:17 am
RobertH,

It has always been the FSP's assumption, and frequently stated on the groups by its leadership, that people would begin moving right away after the vote. They have never tried to dissuade people from doing this, nor is there a disadvantage to people doing this. Where is the benefit to having everyone sit in limbo until 20,000 is reached? The only supposed benefit you propose is if 20,000 are never reached, in which case the FSP by its own rules becomes non-existent.

There need to be people moving into whichever state is chosen ahead of the masses. Political infrastructures need to be built for the many porcupines who do not desire to be members of the LP. The LP in whichever state is chosen needs to be helped to prepare for so many new members. Entrepreneurial FSP members will probably want to get there ahead of the masses to get their businesses up and running. Those with resources may want to get there ahead of time and purchase apartment complexes and multi-unit housing to help their fellow FSPers move more easily (or take advantage of the impending move.)

Moving 20,000 people anywhere is a heck of an undertaking. If we assume that no one is to move before the 20,000 have to begin to move, we are just wasting the time we could be using to get things set up for when the bulk of the people do move.

If you do not have the faith that the FSP will reach 20,000 members, I'm sorry. You needn't however badger those of us who do or assign nefarious motives to us for believing.

And yes RobertH, I do believe that 5,000 missing individuals could be replaced. It is just a matter of teaching the people outreach techniques and helping them become active. The FSP is not organized in such a way as to promote either of these things and that is why their growth curve is nearly flat instead of rising quickly as more members are added. Unfortunately due to the FSP members lists being hidden it is very difficult to coordinate anything between members within a state. Very few members participate in the groups or forum discussions, so trolling for members there isn't very useful either. Once the vote is over and people know where they will be going it will be easier to promote a single state. It will also be easier to promote once a number of people have moved and can easily work together to perform outreach.

Regardless of where we go, outreach is going to be a major part of our work, which is why I am not so hung up on the number of FSP members moving into the state. In every state we will need many, many more people to make this work than 20,000. If we cannot succeed in getting the support of the locals, we will fail. That is also why I feel that we need to be focused on the states with the most libertarian populations, not just the lowest populations. It doesn't help us in the least to move 20,000 people into a state where we can generate little local support, even if it has a smaller population than some of the states with good libertarian support.

George
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: NJLiberty on March 16, 2003, 10:16:08 am
RobertH,

I just reread the FAQ. Nowehere does it say or even imply that we shouldn't move until 20,000 is reached. It says that people are not obligated to move until 20,000 is reached, and that if it is not reached people are not obligated to move.

Where are you reading that we shouldn't move until 20,000? I can't find it there.

George
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Elizabeth on March 16, 2003, 10:20:36 am
FSP, Inc., has no position on:

Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 16, 2003, 10:21:00 am
As you yourself just said, if we can't get those numbers now (from all 50 states) what makes us think we'll get them later (from just the one state)?  

I didn't say any such thing. I think you meant to direct this toward marshrobert1...

Quote
What all of this makes me ask myself is this:  "Why would any such group be trying so desperately to get people to move ahead of, and contrary to, the FSP's own expectations, if the FSP's best interest is what they have in mind and not their own?"

What it makes me think is that the NHLP and company is clearly trying to create its own little New Hampshire project out of the FSP's membership.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be pushing people to move immediately after the vote when the FSP's own stated expectations are that this would not happen

The LPNH is not pushing any such thing. People will move or not move (and in whatever timeframe) according to their own will. People keep telling us that they want to move here right after or even before the vote. (I answer the informational mailbox and am swamped with e-mails asking for information on housing, jobs, etc.)

What are we supposed to say? "Go away, please don't move here.  Wait until there are 20,000" Get real.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 16, 2003, 10:21:59 am
Not in the least. The LPNH supports New Hampshire for the Free State Project because New Hampshire obviously the best choice of the ten candidates. NH state law guarantees the opportunity for a clean election and New Hampshire has the smallest house districts in the nation.

There is more to the issue than election laws and district size.  Some of those districts are also growing larger.  New Hampshire is the fastest growing state in New England, after all.  That's going to change the dynamic after awhile.  And the idea that New Hampshire is "obviously" the best choice is hardly a universal opinion.

The NHLP supports New Hampshire because that's where they work and live and that's what they care about and that's where they want the FSP.

Quote
BTW - Every single member of the LPNH executive board is a member of the Free State Project and the LPNH was the second state LP to endorse the project. As far as I can tell, it is the only state LP making a serious effort to attract the FSP. What is the matter with Wyoming's LP?  ???

Do you really require that sort of validation to make a decision on the issue, George?  Again, what the LP thinks of us in any of these states has nothing to do with what the rest of the population will think of us and that is who we have to win...not the state LP!  I'd hazard a guess that they'd all probably be glad to see the FSP.

And in regard to all NHLP executives being FSP members, how many of them would move if any other state were chosen?  If they would, great!  My question is simply what they've dedicated themselves to as members: a free state, or a free state in New Hampshire?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Elizabeth on March 16, 2003, 10:26:48 am
And in regard to all NHLP executives being FSP members, how many of them would move if any other state were chosen?  If they would, great!  My question is simply what they've dedicated themselves to as members: a free state, or a free state in New Hampshire?

I would ask the same question of all the westies who have opted out of the eastern states, and vice versa.  For anyone who has strictly limited the number of states they will move to, are they interested in a) a free state or b) a free state only where they want it?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Elizabeth on March 16, 2003, 10:32:53 am
What interests me much more than the attributes of this state or that, is the ability of FSP members and friends to discuss the issues rationally and fairly.

I suspect strongly that all of the people who are convinced that there is a conspiracy against their favorite state (and there are those in both the E and W camps) will be sore losers and refuse to honor their commitment to the project (if they haven't already indicated an unwillingness to move anywhere but their pet state).  

Even if they do move, will they be able to work together and get past being outvoted on various issues?  Or will it always be "my way or the highway"?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Elizabeth on March 16, 2003, 10:37:06 am
The NHLP supports New Hampshire because that's where they work and live and that's what they care about and that's where they want the FSP.

Or it's possible that just as various proponents of western states sincerely believe that the FSP can only succeed in the west, that the NH members sincerely believe the FSP can only succeed in NH.

Unless you have specific knowledge of their motives/rationale?  In which case please, let us know.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 16, 2003, 10:39:38 am
As you yourself just said, if we can't get those numbers now (from all 50 states) what makes us think we'll get them later (from just the one state)?  

I didn't say any such thing. I think you meant to direct this toward marshrobert1...

I was responding to the other George, aka. "NJLiberty."  Sorry, there are multiple George's here.   ;)

Quote
What all of this makes me ask myself is this:  "Why would any such group be trying so desperately to get people to move ahead of, and contrary to, the FSP's own expectations, if the FSP's best interest is what they have in mind and not their own?"

What it makes me think is that the NHLP and company is clearly trying to create its own little New Hampshire project out of the FSP's membership.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be pushing people to move immediately after the vote when the FSP's own stated expectations are that this would not happen

The LPNH is not pushing any such thing. People will move or not move (and in whatever timeframe) according to their own will. People keep telling us that they want to move here right after or even before the vote. (I answer the informational mailbox and am swamped with e-mails asking for information on housing, jobs, etc.)

What are we supposed to say? "Go away, please don't move here.  Wait until there are 20,000" Get real.
Quote

I'm not saying you should be turning people away, George, I'm just saying that they ought to have some idea that they move at their own risk, especially if they go prior to the vote.  You'd think people would realize this for themselves, but a lot of the comments I've seen lately make me wonder.  I suppose they consider the vote a foregone conclusion and are making their plans accordingly.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 16, 2003, 10:43:28 am
And in regard to all NHLP executives being FSP members, how many of them would move if any other state were chosen?  If they would, great!  My question is simply what they've dedicated themselves to as members: a free state, or a free state in New Hampshire?

I do not know how many or what states the various LPNH executive board members have opted out of. I will ask. I do know of one board member who regularly talks of moving west if a western state is chosen. From what I gather, the pro-western faction in this organization is much more strident in its opposition to moving east than vice versa.

Personally, I opted out of a number of states when I joined in order to keep my options open. At this point I would move anyehere other than DE, WY, or ID. A clean election simply cannot be guaranteed in those three states.

How about you, Robert? Will you move to New Hampshire if it is chosen? (Or how about ME, VT or DE?)  :-\
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 16, 2003, 10:46:47 am
RobertH,

I just reread the FAQ. Nowehere does it say or even imply that we shouldn't move until 20,000 is reached. It says that people are not obligated to move until 20,000 is reached, and that if it is not reached people are not obligated to move.

Where are you reading that we shouldn't move until 20,000? I can't find it there.


WHEN

Q. What is the time frame for the Free State Project?

A. The Participation Guidelines state that a signature on the Statement of Intent becomes void, and must be renewed by the signer, if three years pass before we reach 5,000 members and select the state. The Participation Guidelines also state that once we reach 20,000 members, everyone has five years to move to the selected state. The Participation Guidelines do not specify a requisite time period between reaching 5,000 members and reaching 20,000 members. However, the assumption has always been that if 20,000 is not close at hand within five years of the launch of the Free State Project (officially September 1st, 2001), the Project will fold. To get 20,000 signers by September 2006, we will need approximately 15 new signatures per day on average. In the month of September 2002 we averaged 7 new signatures per day, while in August and October we have averaged about 20 signatures per day, compared to 4 per day in February and below 1 per day before then. As we continue to expand our publicity and advertising efforts, a constant average of 15 per day should be well within reach.

***

Once again, I'm not trying to say that people "can't" move prior to 20,000.  That would be ridiculous.  All that I'm saying is that making the considerable investment of a move prior to knowing what is to come is taking a risk for a couple of very good reasons.

If it's worth it to them to do so, then fine.  There are just a number here who do not seem to realize it.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 16, 2003, 10:51:00 am
How about you, Robert? Will you move to New Hampshire if it is chosen? (Or how about ME, VT or DE?)  :-\

In regard to New Hampshire, that would depend on how many sign up.  I doubt that the state is workable without the full target membership.

Maine - yes
Vermont - probably
Delaware - no, the state political machine seems too powerful to me and Delaware seems to have little in the way of a libertarian culture.  Besides, I have my doubts that such an effort would prosper in such close proximity to other statist areas like Philadelphia.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 16, 2003, 10:53:04 am
I'm not saying you should be turning people away, George, I'm just saying that they ought to have some idea that they move at their own risk, especially if they go prior to the vote.  

If these "early adopters" are too stupid to understand that risk then they will probably not do the FSP or New Hampshire much good anyway. This conversation is becoming rather absurd.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: NJLiberty on March 16, 2003, 10:55:31 am
RobertH,

I am fully aware that I will be moving at my own risk, but it is a risk I am willing to take for myself and my family. I do not think the vote is a foregone conclusion, but I do believe that NH offers us the best chance for success. Towards that end I am working to try and help other people see that as well so that I can help NH win the vote.

For the record, I did not opt out of any states when I joined. I am prepared to join the fight wherever it may be. I do feel however that there are certain states that are more condusive to our needs and where we will be able to gather much more support than others.

If it was simply a case of going to one of the very least populated states we wouldn't be discussing anything right now except where we were moving in Wyoming, which by the way would be the easiest for me to move to since I have family there and could live there for free. I still don't support that state however and think it would be a very shortsighted choice for the FSP. Its only attractive feature is its low population, otherwise it isn't condusive to our purposes at all.

George
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 16, 2003, 11:02:06 am
Or it's possible that just as various proponents of western states sincerely believe that the FSP can only succeed in the west, that the NH members sincerely believe the FSP can only succeed in NH.

Yes, there are some of those as well.  I've heard that a number of times in reference to Alaska specifically.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 16, 2003, 11:10:13 am
I'm not saying you should be turning people away, George, I'm just saying that they ought to have some idea that they move at their own risk, especially if they go prior to the vote.  

If these "early adopters" are too stupid to understand that risk then they will probably not do the FSP or New Hampshire much good anyway. This conversation is becoming rather absurd.

George, (aka, libertarian40), look at some of the responses on these various threads (or the state discussion list) whenever the issue has come up and you'll notice that some seem to be completely unaware of it.  

I agree that the conversation is becoming absurd though.  None of us are getting anywhere, and I have no interest in getting involved in any bad feeling as a result.

George (aka, NJLiberty), if you feel that NH is the best for you and your family, then bravo - that's where you need to be.  I would never criticize anyone for that.

I don't believe that it's just a case of moving to the least populated state.  There are other issues involved as well, and states I would prefer to Wyoming based on criteria that really don't have anything to do with the state debate itself.  

The problem I have is when so many begin to imply that the rush is on to one particular "obvious" state, and that the rest of us might as well throw in our cards and accept it.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 16, 2003, 11:29:59 am
I agree that the conversation is becoming absurd though.  None of us are getting anywhere, and I have no interest in getting involved in any bad feeling as a result.

I should have said that particular part of the conversation is becoming absurd. I'd prefer that we don't have bad feelings, either. This thread is called "The Case for New Hampshire" and I will continue to make this case. I honestly believe that New Hampshire is the best choice for this project for several reasons, and they can be found here:

http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm

Cannot the case for Wyoming be made in a "Case for Wyoming" thread?

Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 16, 2003, 11:37:47 am
Again, what the LP thinks of us in any of these states has nothing to do with what the rest of the population will think of us and that is who we have to win...not the state LP!  I'd hazard a guess that they'd all probably be glad to see the FSP.

Well I certainly agree with you on that. But why can't any of the LPs in the western states get organized enough to write a lousy press release? If they cannot do something as simple as that, how will they ever win any elections?  ;)

Compare the number of elected Libertarians in New Hampshire to that in the other nine states. Hmmm....
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on March 16, 2003, 12:38:46 pm

Not in the least. The LPNH supports New Hampshire for the Free State Project because New Hampshire obviously the best choice of the ten candidates. NH state law guarantees the opportunity for a clean election and New Hampshire has the smallest house districts in the nation.

This is something that NH's supporters take out on context.  NH is one of the worst states, as far as state district sizes, along with Idaho and Delaware.  Actually, Wyoming has the 2nd smallest districts.

From Joe Swyers
House District Size per State using outdated 2000 population figures:
4,059 to 8,118 Vermont (150 reps)
8,230 Wyoming (60 reps)
8,443 Maine (151 reps)
9,022 Montana (100 reps)
10,783 South Dakota (70 reps)
13,106 North Dakota (98 reps)
15,673 Alaska (40 reps)
19,112 Delaware (41 reps)
3,089 to 21,559 New Hampshire (400 reps)
36,962 Idaho (70 reps)

Senate District Size (rounded) per State using 2002 population figures:
13,500 North Dakota
16,500 Wyoming
18,100 Montana
20,500 Vermont
21,700 South Dakota
32,100 Alaska (only 20 Senators)
36,500 Maine
38,300 Idaho
38,400 Delaware
53,000 New Hampshire (only 24 Senators)

When both House and Senate district sizes are considered, Wyoming is second, only behind Vermont for small district sizes.  If you consider Wyoming having term limits and a ballot initiative process, it moves even farther ahead of the rest of the pack.  Wyoming is clearly, one of the easiest states to access as far as state legislative assembly is considered.  When all four factors are considered, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Idaho stand out as being the hardest to access as far as state legislative assembly is considered.  These states are all hit by not having term limits and New Hampshire does not even have a ballot initiative process.  It should be no surprise that the least populated states have the smallest districts.  What is interesting, though, is that Alaska and Delaware have such large district sizes considering their low populations.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: NJLiberty on March 16, 2003, 02:43:45 pm

This is something that NH's supporters take out on context.  NH is one of the worst states, as far as state district sizes, along with Idaho and Delaware.  Actually, Wyoming has the 2nd smallest districts.

From Joe Swyers
House District Size per State using outdated 2000 population figures:
4,059 to 8,118 Vermont (150 reps)
8,230 Wyoming (60 reps)
8,443 Maine (151 reps)
9,022 Montana (100 reps)
10,783 South Dakota (70 reps)
13,106 North Dakota (98 reps)
15,673 Alaska (40 reps)
19,112 Delaware (41 reps)
3,089 to 21,559 New Hampshire (400 reps)
36,962 Idaho (70 reps)

The numbers there are somewhat misleading. Only one of NH's 88 districts has 21,559 constituents. The others are considerably smaller, and many of them are smaller than Wyoming or Maine's. It may also be easier for us to get some representatives elected in the larger districts because you are allowed to vote for multiple people in those districts and while we may not win say 7 out of 7 reps in a particular district, we may very well win a few.

Personally I don't see term limits helping us all that much. The Reps/Dems will just churn out the next person on their ladder to replace the incumbent. If one of you all could show me where term limits have worked to help get third party candidates elected to the state house I would appreicate it. I am from NJ and we don't get a heck of a lot of news about local western elections out here.

Thanks.

George
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: NJLiberty on March 16, 2003, 03:03:40 pm
Do job hunters here rely on "faith" they will find a good job in the new state?
Can the first five thousand rely on "faith" that 15,000 reinforcements will arrive?


I am being objective about this. I do not believe that the poor economies in most of the western states can absorb another 20,000 readily. They are fairly flat and stagnant with the exception of Idaho.

As far as the faith in the 15,000 goes, one either believes that the FSP will work or one doesn't. I am not suggesting that everyone go running pell mell into the Free State five minutes after the vote is announced, but I also don't see the need to wait until we reach 20,000 and then wait and see if people are actually moving, and then wait and see if they are actually starting to do something, and then wait and see if they are successful. Where does the waiting end? At what point do you just take it on faith that this thing can work and then go out and try to make it work, instead of sitting on the sideline watching and waiting to see what other people are going to do?

The libertarian and patriot movements have been hampered by this wait and see attitude for too long. They spend far too much time talking to one another and patting themselves on the back for the little they have accomplished and not enough time getting off their butts and working at this. If all the libertarian types in this country ever got away from their computers and went outside and worked at this as hard  as the Republicans and Democrats do, those two parties would be a distant memory.

I don't expect the Libertarian Party to win this thing for us, but it would be nice if they would support us. We are going to need all the the help we can get when we get to the Free State. At least the eastern state's LP's have endorsed the project, and NH's has gone so far as to create and fund a committee to help promote it. That is more than I can say for the other states.

The other states can't even get people within their own states to join the FSP. According to the last FSP member breakdown by state, NH alone has only 29 fewer FSP members than the five western states combined (ID, MT, ND, SD, WY) and those five states have millions more combined population than NH. That would indicate to me that people in those states are not very interested in the FSP. How serious can Wyoming be with only 12 FSP members, ND with 8, or SD with 11?

George
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: NJLiberty on March 16, 2003, 04:10:19 pm
Joe,

I agree that out of the whole population of the FSP there are very few people that actually have any idea what they are getting into. It is going to come as a rude shock to many that this is not going to be a cakewalk.

As for myself, I have worked on a number of different campaigns for the Republicans, Democrats and various third party candidates, from George Bush, Sr.'s loss to Bubba, to local town representatives. I have also run for several offices (I'm currently running for the Assembly here in NJ) from school board to Congress. What I have noticed most about the various campaigns is how business like the major parties run their campaigns, even local ones, and how much the third parties resemble social clubs.

I think that is one of the greatest flaws with the LP. They aren't focused on winning elections as much as they are running candidates. every year the call goes out here in NJ for "paper" candidates to fill positions on ballots. All this does when the candidate invariably loses is reinforce the notion that the LP can't win, that a vote for them is a wasted vote, and yet they keep doing it instead of running fewer but viable candidates.

I don't buy the "we are already free so we don't have any incentive to join up arguement." I have family in the west and have spent time out there and they are only nominally freer than I am here. In some cases less free since NJ has the least restrictive homeschooling laws in the nation. My cousin is leaving his teaching position in WY because of all the new laws and regulation they are passing out there, which is a shame because he has really enjoyed the job.

If you all were so free and had the chance to become more free, why on earth would you want to settle for less freedom? It doesn't make any sense. Sounds more like the folks out west are too lazy to get out and do anything more than just settle for what they have.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: phylinidaho on March 16, 2003, 04:52:55 pm
Again, what the LP thinks of us in any of these states has nothing to do with what the rest of the population will think of us and that is who we have to win...not the state LP!  I'd hazard a guess that they'd all probably be glad to see the FSP.

Well I certainly agree with you on that. But why can't any of the LPs in the western states get organized enough to write a lousy press release? If they cannot do something as simple as that, how will they ever win any elections?  ;)
I can't speak for any of the other states, but I can tell you that the reason the IDLP does not write a "lousy press release" has nothing to do with lack of organization - quite the contrary. Being a diverse group, as befits libertarianism Western style, there are many members who do not support the FSP (mostly on the ground that it could result in taking the most active LP members away from the local endeavor, which is just beginning to show the kind of organization that they believe will win elections). The EC, rightly, will not dictate to the membership, nor will it purport to speak for the entire membership.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 16, 2003, 07:47:30 pm
Or it's possible that just as various proponents of western states sincerely believe that the FSP can only succeed in the west, that the NH members sincerely believe the FSP can only succeed in NH.

Several LPNH members have stated this very thing.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 16, 2003, 07:59:53 pm
Libertarian40, now it's your turn when you state:
Quote
If libertarians really consider sales taxes to be among the least undesireable type then I will have to disagree with them - sales taxes turn all kinds of retail businesses into agents of the state.
I'm one of those retailers. I'd much rather have the state limited to looking at my gross sales than digging into the details of my inventory, profit, loss, and whether I'm depreciating or amortizing according to the right schedule. And I'd rather not be paying rent in the way of property tax which also gives the government entre into looking at what I own.

To each his own.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on March 16, 2003, 10:39:19 pm
Quote
The other states can't even get people within their own states to join the FSP. According to the last FSP member breakdown by state, NH alone has only 29 fewer FSP members than the five western states combined (ID, MT, ND, SD, WY) and those five states have millions more combined population than NH. That would indicate to me that people in those states are not very interested in the FSP.
This is an interesting question. Joe suggested it's because people out west are already more free, and wouldn't want to leave their state for a more risky proposition. That is a good point, Joe, although it doesn't explain why NH, that is already similarly free, has a large FSP population. Also, you don't have to be a member to help the FSP cause; it would be very easy for a person in Wyoming to advance his state by posting in these forums, without joining and having to move if DE were picked, for example.

My guess is another factor is at least as strong. People in the interior west simply don't have politics on the brain as much as other states do. This may be laziness or lack of interest in things political; or it may be they are just not under attack as much as in other states. For example, NH has the teacher's union pushing hard for higher taxes. That is obviously going to energize the freedom-lovers there. They can clearly use our help to fight that back (I don't buy that LPNH is just engaging in one-upmanship with the other states, although they may have some delusions about how we would help the LPNH itself).

Joe, you mentioned some factors making NH sound like one of the least accessible states. However, just to play devil's advocate for a second, didn't NH actually have some real LP members in the legislature at some point (or was that VT)? If so, that seems at least a partial counter to your argument, and there must be some access for alternative/non-mainstream ideals into the political process. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm working from memory here.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 17, 2003, 08:26:37 am
Zxcv,
Vermont, New Hampshire and Alaska all, at one time in the past, had Libertarian state legislators.

New Hampshire had a Libertarian legislator as recently as the last session (Steve Vaillancourt). In fact, he just got reelected. He changed his registration to Republican this time to take advantage of the straight-ticket voters.

Quote
Please don't get me wrong about New Hampshire being inaccessible.
New Hampshire is very accessible (at least the state legislature is according to my analysis

You bet. About 100 of New Hampshire's representatives won office with fewer than 2000 votes. Some won with fewer than 1000 votes. And New Hampshire's house will most probably be more accessible before the next election - there are several redistricting bills moving through the legislature right now which would create  more (and smaller) districts. The most popular bill would create 215 districts - quite a jump from the present 88.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on March 17, 2003, 10:07:07 am
Quote
New Hampshire had a Libertarian legislator as recently as the last session (Steve Vaillancourt). In fact, he just got reelected. He changed his registration to Republican this time to take advantage of the straight-ticket voters.
Sounds like a smart fellow.  ;)

I wonder what the LPNH thinks of this? Has he been given the cold shoulder?
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 17, 2003, 10:26:02 am
Quote
New Hampshire had a Libertarian legislator as recently as the last session (Steve Vaillancourt). In fact, he just got reelected. He changed his registration to Republican this time to take advantage of the straight-ticket voters.
Sounds like a smart fellow.  ;)

I wonder what the LPNH thinks of this? Has he been given the cold shoulder?

The cold shoulder? Not that I can tell. I don't mind at all that Steve did this. What matters to me is that he is there serving in the legislature.

If 20,000 porcupines were to come here and call themselves Republicans it would be fine with me. In fact, I think this would actually be the most effective strategy (at least initially).
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: JasonPSorens on March 17, 2003, 11:54:22 am
I can't speak for any of the other states, but I can tell you that the reason the IDLP does not write a "lousy press release" has nothing to do with lack of organization - quite the contrary. Being a diverse group, as befits libertarianism Western style, there are many members who do not support the FSP (mostly on the ground that it could result in taking the most active LP members away from the local endeavor, which is just beginning to show the kind of organization that they believe will win elections). The EC, rightly, will not dictate to the membership, nor will it purport to speak for the entire membership.

I have no desire to participate in any counterproductive east vs. west debate, so consider this a tangential reply.  

Since I have an interest in seeing the FSP succeed, I must strongly disagree with this attitude from the ID LP.  The FSP is a strategic concept; it's a means for achieving liberty.  If it is to be ignored simply because it does not garner unanimous support, then what we have is immobilism and failure, not respect for differences of opinion.  What kind of political party never takes a step except when 100% of its members agree totally with it?  It would never get anything done.  To be effective a political party must sometimes have the vision to adopt controversial strategies for growth and success.  Thus, I think the ID LP is really shooting themselves in the foot here, and it has nothing to do with libertarian principles.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 18, 2003, 04:56:33 pm
Sorry I been away...ST. Patty's Day!

For the record I have opted out of no state!

Dual Libertarian Victories in New Hampshire!

       Charles Carroll has won a seat on the Planning Commission of Rindge, New Hampshire during voting last Tuesday, March 11th, the Monadnock Libertarians are proud to announce.
Carroll won the seat against two other candidates who were also vying for the two seats up for election. About 43% of the approximately 1300 voters cast ballots for Carroll, easily placing the Libertarian second in the crowd of three.
      Carroll took part in a candidate's forum, where he espoused libertarian solutions for local problems. His performance at the forum appears to have played a large part in his decisive win in New Hampshire's traditional March elections.
      During the forum, Carroll told the crowd "that the town can not survive if they continue to look at them selves as a bedroom community; it didn't work for Andy Griffith in Mayberry and it won't work in Rindge".
      "We feel this was a great election with very little work. The planning board will have a new voice with new ideas, instead of the normal anti-business, anti-homeowner ideas" stated Travis Eaton, Carroll's campaign manager.        
      This win was just the beginning for the Monadnock Libertarians, who are actively fielding Libertarian candidates to fill local office, explained James Maynard, interim co-chair of the Cheshire County LPNH affiliate. The group is also fielding two candidates for Keene City Council in November, Maynard and former 2000 LPNH State Representative candidate Michelle Otterson, who earned nearly 10% of the vote in that election. Keene is the largest city in Cheshire County, and the 7th largest in New Hampshire.
      But Carroll was not alone among winners in New Hampshire this March. Howard Wilson of Andover has also won a three-year term on that town's budget committee.
      Charles Carroll will serve as Planning Commissioner for three years, in the town of Rindge (pop. 5,200). Rindge contains over 40 square miles of land, and 17 lakes and ponds. It is the home of Cathedral of the Pines and Franklin Pierce College.
      For more information about the Monadnock Libertarians, please visit http://www.monadnocklibs.org, or e-mail monadnocklibs@keenenh.us.

Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on March 19, 2003, 12:48:33 am
Keene is the largest city in Cheshire County, and the 7th largest in New Hampshire.

I am very happy to see two members of my party in elections.  

According to the census 2000, Keene is the 11th, not the 7th largest city in NH.  I know, the figures might have changed in 3 years but I think they would just make Keene, even smaller, because most of the growth is in the once small southerncentral and southeastern towns.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 19, 2003, 12:23:26 pm
According to the census 2000, Keene is the 11th, not the 7th largest city in NH

I just looked at the 2000 census data and it looks to me like Keene was #6. Hmm....

Maybe marshrobert1 makes a good point about all this number crunching....  ???
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on March 19, 2003, 12:37:48 pm
According to the census 2000, Keene is the 11th, not the 7th largest city in NH

I just looked at the 2000 census data and it looks to me like Keene was #6. Hmm....

Here is report I have
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/tables/nh_tab_6.PDF
It shows that the population for Keene is not growing while the population for the towns in southcentral and southeastern NH is growing.  It shows that Keene was 9th in 1990, 11th in 2000, and will likely drop a spot or two in 2010.

In New Hampshire, there is so much growth that it is hard to keep up with all of the current town sizes.  A town might have 20,000+ and be in 5th place and another town of 20,000+ might be in 12th place, size wise.  What is easy to keep up with, though, is that NH has many towns with 20,000-30,000 people that are 10-20 min drives from each other.  Many of these growing towns are part of the large Boston-Lowell-Nashua-Lawrence MSA.

The report is from the U.S. Census Bureau page for NH at
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/tables/redist_nh.html

This is the official U.S. government information for NH.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 19, 2003, 12:58:26 pm
Derry, Salem, Merrimack, Londonderry, and Hudson are not cities - they are towns. So Keene was indeed #6.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 21, 2003, 10:00:10 pm
On March 20th Rich Tomasso wrote:

A good day for the FSP.

That afternoon John Babiarz and the FSP Media Director (Jan?) were on WNTK
at 2pm for half an hour talking about the project and some of the efforts
taking place here in NH, including the Escape to NH event in June.

The host, Arne Arneson (previous Dem gov candidate) read from the website
and highlighted some of the appealing aspects of NH for those who might be
interested in the project.

WNTK is the most popular talk station in NH and can be heard in VT and MA.

That evening I held and FSP info meeting at Borders in Nashua at 6pm.
It was a small crowd, about a dozen. We talked about the project, answered
questions, handed out flyers. A few people around us in the bookstore were
clearly listening in. By the end of the meeting we had 3 people give
commitments to sign on (hopefully today), and also got some good leads on
media and promotion.

Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: vepope on March 23, 2003, 03:54:31 pm
I've spent the majority of this Sunny Sunday afternoon reading the pros and cons of NH and other states here today.  There has been a lot that I've read about why one state is better than others for whatever reason, and many have discussed current trends of other immigrants to the targeted states.

One thing I haven't seen discussed is this:  After we get started on the actual exodus to the target state, and begin to have an impact on it's local and regional (within the state) laws, what is the likelihood that D's or R's will do the same thing we have done, just to try to stop us from succeeding?  

That would look like a very strong argument against anywhere that facilitates commuting to get a good job.  Just a thought, since I'm fairly new to all of this.  I just want this to work, and make it as difficult as possible for the supporters and builders of "big goverment" to rally against us. ::)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Steve on March 23, 2003, 06:32:31 pm
Quote
vepope wrote:
what is the likelihood that D's or R's will do the same thing we have done, just to try to stop us from succeeding?
In my opinion, the likelihood is zero, thanks to the phenomenon that usually works for special interests against the collective: "concentrated benefits, diffused costs".  It is hard enough to persuade rabid libertarians to make the move and reap great benefits; how likely are our opponents to pay the cost of a move for the questionable benefit of thwarting us? It is more likely that the target state will acquire the reputation for being libertarian, and will be avoided by the D's and R's like a leper colony.  Many would rather see us concentrate in one state, ridding all the other states of us!
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: exitus on March 23, 2003, 06:54:14 pm
After a lot of research and thought,  I think New Hampshire would be a great place to live, especially if 20,000 liberty activists all moved there.  I think it is the only eastern state even worth considering,  and easily one of the top  choices, at least fourth-best, no matter how high the population factor is.

I just spoke with a cousin who lived in NH while getting his law degree, he enjoyed living there but said it was noticeably more cold for him compared to where he grew up in Salt Lake City.  He said the people are very pleasant and he and his family have enjoyed going back for vacations in the summertime now that he lives in Maryland.

Sometimes, I think that the New Hampshire contingent is going to win this whole vote thanks in part to their organization and efforts, (although I have greater wishes on Wyoming still).  Let it be said, however, if the FSP fails to get 20,000 (I shudder at the thought),  or if the FSP chooses another state,  I think NH will still be remembered by hundreds of people as a place they will want to move to, thanks in part to the good efforts of all the friendly libertarians in New Hampshire!
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 24, 2003, 08:50:26 am
I have planned an informational meeting about the Free State Project at the Dover, New Hampshire public library on Monday, April 21st from 7:00 - 8:30 pm.

Literature and information about the project will be provided. This event is open to the public.

Escape to New Hampshire! - http://www.lpnh.org/escape.htm

 :)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: JasonPSorens on March 24, 2003, 08:59:29 am
Sometimes, I think that the New Hampshire contingent is going to win this whole vote thanks in part to their organization and efforts, (although I have greater wishes on Wyoming still).  Let it be said, however, if the FSP fails to get 20,000 (I shudder at the thought),  or if the FSP chooses another state,  I think NH will still be remembered by hundreds of people as a place they will want to move to, thanks in part to the good efforts of all the friendly libertarians in New Hampshire!

There's no doubt that the NH libertarians have done more for the FSP than libertarians from any other state (not just candidate states), and for that we'll all be grateful for years to come, no matter where we end up.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: vepope on March 24, 2003, 02:50:43 pm
Sometimes, I think that the New Hampshire contingent is going to win this whole vote thanks in part to their organization and efforts, (although I have greater wishes on Wyoming still).  Let it be said, however, if the FSP fails to get 20,000 (I shudder at the thought),  or if the FSP chooses another state,  I think NH will still be remembered by hundreds of people as a place they will want to move to, thanks in part to the good efforts of all the friendly libertarians in New Hampshire!

There's no doubt that the NH libertarians have done more for the FSP than libertarians from any other state (not just candidate states), and for that we'll all be grateful for years to come, no matter where we end up.

Yes, from what I've read on here the last few days, if is very obvious that the NH people have worked any tails they may have had clear off to provide information for this culling process.  There is no doubt that they care passionately about the successful outcome of this project.  Are they biased?  Sure, it's their home.  But, they use solid information to sway opinion, and that is worth consideration.

However, I agree with exitus that WY would be my first choice!
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 24, 2003, 03:35:43 pm
Yes, from what I've read on here the last few days, if is very obvious that the NH people have worked any tails they may have had clear off to provide information for this culling process.  There is no doubt that they care passionately about the successful outcome of this project.  Are they biased?  Sure, it's their home

Many of the pro-NH posters to this thread are not New Hampshire residents.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 24, 2003, 04:06:58 pm
I'm one of those NH boosters who is not a resident.

I have looked at the various threads, and statistical data, think Jason and the board, and the people putting the numbers together have really done and incredible job, and I sincerely believe in the mission of the FSP.

Having grown up in the city and moving to a small town I have a pretty good idea what it takes to become a part of that town.  Geez it's hard, you are considered an outsider, everyone knows everyone, went to the same school, etc.

Some of the states really look good on paper, but wow if you don't have a history in small town America, it's really hard.  Like years to just establish credibility, and I just don't see any people from those states standing up and saying come!

In NH they are organizing running canidates.  Seems to me that initially we are going to need natives to run for office, need a local organization.  Not saying everyone should run and join the NHLP, that's a personal choice, but if we have local canidates to support initially we will be so much further down the road than having to start from scratch.

Wouldn't it be nice to have an instant friend when you got to town?  Maybe even a local!  Have an organization you could begin helping like day one?

Perhaps it's a credit to the folks up there, but me, an outsider, have been made to feel I already have a bunch of friends in NH.

So foolish old man I may be, I want to go and fight for freedom were my friends are!

Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 28, 2003, 06:18:25 pm
http://www.lpnh.org/liblines/LibLines-JanFeb-2003.htm

Enjoy!
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on March 28, 2003, 07:21:15 pm
It's nice to see a vigorous party and a newsletter that indicates it.

However, I have a little problem with this item, from it:
Quote
There is nothing unethical about opting out of all nine of the other states - NH is for many reasons the best choice for the project, and offers the best chance for its success.

Unethical? Perhaps not. But it sure ain't working within the spirit of FSP, which intended, after all, to move 20,000 people to a chosen state (especially in a large state like NH, where we will need every new body we can scrape up, this makes no sense). We've got a lot of people willing to uproot themselves and move to another state. People who opt out of all but the state they are already living in, demonstrate a lack of commitment, at the very least. Personally, I wish Jason had set it up so that you could opt out of no more than 5 states, so we would be filtering these lightweights out.

The passage above somewhat reminds me of the people who encourage others to go down and make sure they apply for all their welfare "rights".
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on March 28, 2003, 07:57:48 pm
Hmm...See something positive and look for something negative...Isn't that the tried and true method of the failure of the libertarian movement?

Agree that opting out of all states but your favorite is a voliation of the spirit of the FSP, but being negative will get us now where!

All the states with the glowing numbers have few FSP people and little action!

Nit pick all you want, but the fact is the only canditate state that is working towards freedom, supporting the FSP with action is NH!



Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: exitus on March 29, 2003, 12:54:44 am
Hmm...See something positive and look for something negative...Isn't that the tried and true method of the failure of the libertarian movement?

I see negativity coming out of two extremes:


--
________________________________________________

And here's the last memorable time the topic of this strategy of "rigging the vote" was discussed:

 Moving To A Candidate State Before FSP Selects A Specific State... (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1218;start=0)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on March 29, 2003, 01:48:27 am
An official request by Jason and others on the committee, to George Reich requesting he withdraw that statement, would probably not be a bad thing.

Out of a very impressive newsletter, and enthusiastic words of welcome by LPNH to FSP, that is the one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb. George really ought to re-think that. Success on his part implementing that strategy would truly be a Pyrrhic victory. FSP might be torn apart by it; or at least, NH would not get the 20,000 they need, because a large portion of FSP members might bail.

Even if most did keep their commitment and moved to NH, they might not make the best activists. Probably wouldn't join the LPNH, either!
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on March 29, 2003, 02:19:56 am
Quote
On one hand, you have the LPNH announcing that "There is nothing unethical about opting out of all nine of the other states [but choosing to stay in] NH." (http://www.lpnh.org/liblines/LibLines-JanFeb-2003.htm)

There is some room for maneuvering here by saying that opting out of a state does not necessarily mean that one is absolutely refusing to move to that state...

However...I also note the following from that same source article:

Quote
We must act now before this opportunity is lost forever. We need to make sure that when the vote is taken, New Hampshire comes out on top...

Joining the Free State Project doesn't cost anything and does not mean making a commitment to move away from NH. Members are free to "opt out" of any and all states that they reserve the right not to relocate to...

At its January meeting, the LPNH executive board voted unanimously to endorse the Free State Project. Read the press release here <http://www.lpnh.org/pr/pr011703.htm>. The board created a "Welcome to the Granite State" committee which is working very hard toward bringing the FSP here to New Hampshire. But we need your help. We need you to join the project and we need you to convince your friends, neighbors and coworkers to join the project. And we need you to vote for NH. Don't procrastinate any longer. Go to FreeStateProject.org <http://www.FreeStateProject.org> and sign up today. Your freedom depends on it!

You can join the FSP and opt out of various states, up to and including every state but the one in which you live, and that is perfectly acceptable (I've opted out of two states myself).  However, joining the FSP and opting out of some states is one thing, but joining the FSP and opting out of every state but your own, knowing that the only reason you join is to vote for your state (with no intention of considering any other) is quite another thing.  In the final analysis, you are not voting for which state you think is best for all of us, you are voting for which state you feel is best for all the rest of us with no committment or risk on your own part.  As for you, you're already in the place you feel is best for you and you don't intend to leave.

Does the article encourage folks to find out what the FSP is really all about?
Does the article encourage folks to investigate the state question for themselves and determine which is best for liberty?
Does the article encourage folks to find out who else is in the FSP, and thus get an idea of who all they are inviting to come to their state?
Does the article encourage folks to join these discussions and debates and find out what all the FSP has in mind once it reaches a state, or how it might go about its work?

No.  It encourages folks to join the FSP for the sole purpose of voting for New Hampshire.  That appears to be the extent of its vision.

And consider how it might affect the vote in other ways.  Maybe the people you recruit via this method are not sufficient enough to sway the FSP to New Hampshire, but they might be enough to skew which state does win because they're likely to put the other nine states in a devil-may-care order.

Ideally, we need people who care about what order all of the states should rightly appear in because none of us can be guaranteed that the one we think is best will win.  And this implies a need for people who are informed about the various merits and problems in each of these states; people who can cast a thoughtful, reasoned vote about how the states rank in terms of which are best for liberty.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 29, 2003, 08:13:39 pm
If the organization really had it together, they would identify the majority of seats most easily won and persuade their people to move there rather than in those hopeless districts. Also to move "just enough" into districts so that other Free Staters can move to where they are needed to put a movement over the top.

We are working on a list of recommended districts for in-migration and hope to make it public by the end of April.  ;)
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: Karl on March 30, 2003, 04:41:41 pm
FSP members must be willing to compromise on the job availability factor.  NH is the only state that meets that  compromise.  Even with NH's main downsides -- higher population and the alleged "creeping statism" from the borders of neighboring states are outweighed by its ability to support FSP members' financial viability.  Personal financial viability is the most important factor of all

Some points of elaboration:

1.  Only New Hampshire and Delaware are near major metro areas can support full variety of the career fields of many FSP members.  It will be hard enough competing with 20,000 other well-educated FSP members and natives in NH -- how can this be done in Wyoming?  I don’t think it can.

2.  Some have suggested that we change careers.  What does a computer programmer or electrical engineer or other specialists, who have invested years of their lives in their education and career experience change careers to?  Clearly many will be forced to branch out from their specialties, but it is not reasonable to expect they become electricians, geologists, ranchers and rodeo clowns.  Things aren't yet THAT BAD in the rest of the country.  And we need to convince 17,000 people that it is worth it.

3.  The first 3,000 FSP members are the hard-core; many are the so-called "broken glass eaters".  Most individuals who hang out in libertarian circles are already aware of FSP; those who are willing have already joined.  What's left are 17,000 people who aren't "broken glass eaters".  They're the people who need more convincing.  They're the people who need a decent job to support their family.  They're the ones who aren't willing to make the same sacrifice that the first 3,000 members are.  If the FSP membership is to approach anything near 20,000, we must recognize this fact and compromise.  Only NH fits the bill.  We’re much too focused on statistics.  We’re human beings, not computers!

4.  I have read the concerns over LPNH's tactic of signing up NH-only members.  But when LPID says they don't want us, and LPWY remains silent, I am encouraged by LPNH's gusto.  Flawed though they may be, I look forward to getting plugged into LPNH's team of activists after the move, and helping them improve.

5.  I have heard several times that FSP members will create jobs.  This is true.  But in the first five or ten years, these will be primarily low-paid service jobs.  Some members may be forced to get two jobs, or take a severe cut in their standard of living.  This will dishearten many members, and will eliminate the time they could otherwise use for activism.  They'll quit FSP after a few years.  It will happen even to many of the people who consider themselves hard core today.  The few higher-paying jobs that exist require specialized training that is too costly and too time-consuming to learn for most people.
Title: Re:The case for New Hampshire
Post by: George Reich on March 30, 2003, 10:19:49 pm
I look forward to getting plugged into LPNH's team of activists after the move, and helping them improve.

Karl, why wait until after the move? We need your help with our Tax Day Outreach. Please see this thread if you are able and willing to help:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1522

 :-*