Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: The case for New Hampshire  (Read 53664 times)

BillG

  • Guest
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #60 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)
Logged

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #61 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
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #62 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.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5723
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #63 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.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

thewaka

  • FSP Member
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 263
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #64 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
Logged

Dave Mincin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
  • I'm a llama!
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #65 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
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!

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #66 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.
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #67 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".
Logged

Dave Mincin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
  • I'm a llama!
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #68 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.
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!

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #69 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?
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #70 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.

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #71 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
Logged

Dave Mincin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
  • I'm a llama!
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #72 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
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!

Michelle

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #73 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
Logged
Please join NHLA today! http://www.nhliberty.org With every new member we gain political weight to support liberty-friendly candidates and promote liberty throughout NH.
Support the Liberty Scholarship Fund. Please make a donation today! http://www.lsfund.org

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #74 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.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 12   Go Up