Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12   Go Down

Author Topic: The case for New Hampshire  (Read 53944 times)

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #120 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?  
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #121 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.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2003, 06:38:54 am by RobertH »
Logged

Dave Mincin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
  • I'm a llama!
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #122 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!



Logged
Please join us!
http://www.nhliberty.org/ New Hampshire Liberty Alliance.

" A leader knows that if he is generous with his time, his people will be generous with their effort."

Plug>>>>Realtor Lovejoy Real Estate!

George Reich

  • FSP Participant
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
  • I just *love* it when Hank and Dagny brainstorm!
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #123 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?  ???
Logged
If everyone were rich there would be no need for government assistance. If everyone were rich all children could attend private schools. If everyone were rich, government would become superfluous. Read the free e-book at this site:

http://www.scienceofgettingrich.net

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #124 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.

NJLiberty

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #125 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
Logged

NJLiberty

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #126 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
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #127 on: March 16, 2003, 10:20:36 am »

FSP, Inc., has no position on:

  • When people should/can move to the chosen state, other than requiring them to move within the 5 years after reaching 20,000
  • What will happen if the project does not reach 20,000, other than disbanding (i.e., a specific fallback plan)
« Last Edit: March 16, 2003, 10:22:35 am by Elizabeth »
Logged

George Reich

  • FSP Participant
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
  • I just *love* it when Hank and Dagny brainstorm!
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #128 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.
Logged
If everyone were rich there would be no need for government assistance. If everyone were rich all children could attend private schools. If everyone were rich, government would become superfluous. Read the free e-book at this site:

http://www.scienceofgettingrich.net

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #129 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?

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #130 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?
« Last Edit: March 16, 2003, 10:28:20 am by Elizabeth »
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #131 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"?
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #132 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.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #133 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.

George Reich

  • FSP Participant
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
  • I just *love* it when Hank and Dagny brainstorm!
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #134 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?)  :-\
Logged
If everyone were rich there would be no need for government assistance. If everyone were rich all children could attend private schools. If everyone were rich, government would become superfluous. Read the free e-book at this site:

http://www.scienceofgettingrich.net
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12   Go Up