Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: The case for New Hampshire  (Read 53948 times)

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #135 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.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #136 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.

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 #137 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.
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

NJLiberty

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #138 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
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #139 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.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #140 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.

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 #141 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?

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

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 #142 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....
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

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #143 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.
Logged

NJLiberty

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #144 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
Logged

NJLiberty

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #145 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
Logged

NJLiberty

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #146 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.
Logged

phylinidaho

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
  • Friend of the FSP
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #147 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.
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 #148 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.
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

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 #149 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.
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 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Up