Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59   Go Down

Author Topic: NH vs WY  (Read 187258 times)

Radar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Constitutional Scholar
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #825 on: September 23, 2003, 10:19:21 am »

Quote
Focusing on generalizations instead of specifics and insulting vague groups of people instead of providing specific names and examples is a common demagoguic tactic. Goebbels, Hitler and Stalin also used this method, interestingly.

So did Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bill Gates, and virtually every other person to ever hold leadership positions.  What's your point?  Record companies don't sell records one at a time to individuals, they notice trends, and use general rules, rather than focusing on a few exceptions.  All successful companies and people do this.  

Quote
OK, then what is your opinion of someone who has read many of your arguments and those of other WY supporters and still voted thusly:

NH>WY>MT>ID>DE>VT>AK>SD>ND>ME  ?

My opinion of anyone who put New Hampshire first is that they are uninformed at best, probably voting through emotion rather than logic, and are detrimental to the chances of the FSP actually gaining enough power to make change and thereby accomplish our stated goal of true freedom & liberty during our lifetimes.  

Quote
I'd prefer to have someone who is paying taxes, and probably owns a business, property and likely educated doing the thinking when it comes to needed levels of state influence than the guy who is relying on a state salary and bought votes to pay his income and might find a few good social programs helpful after he leaves office.

So you want to exclude working class Americans from holding public office?  I work hard and make a decent living but not so decent that I can just walk away from my job and expect to pay my bills with $100 per year.  And if you think people won't have to walk away from their jobs, you're expectations of service and availability from your elected officials are very low.

I want all Americans to be able to run for office and for them to be paid a fair (but not huge) wage to prevent a lot of corruption that occurs when they are too broke to pay their bills because some fool wants to pay them only $100/year.  Most Americans are working class people.  Do you think they are adequately represented by those who are not in this catagory?

Quote
The 400 representatives does allow people to have easier access to government representatives.

No it doesn't.  It just means you have more people trying to run your life for you.  And if they are only paid $100/year, you really won't have easier access because they'll be at their jobs and with their families and be unavailable to meet with their constituents.

Having more reps doesn't mean you'll know them better or they'll be more available.  That is a fallacy.
Logged
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

--Satchel Paige


Oh yea, and New Hampshire Sucks!  It's the worst choice for a free state because it offers us the worst chance for success.  - Me

JonM

  • First 1000
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
Re:NH vs WY (Troll Chow, for the hungry troll in all of us)
« Reply #826 on: September 23, 2003, 11:13:28 am »

Quote
I'd prefer to have someone who is paying taxes, and probably owns a business, property and likely educated doing the thinking when it comes to needed levels of state influence than the guy who is relying on a state salary and bought votes to pay his income and might find a few good social programs helpful after he leaves office.

So you want to exclude working class Americans from holding public office?  I work hard and make a decent living but not so decent that I can just walk away from my job and expect to pay my bills with $100 per year.  And if you think people won't have to walk away from their jobs, you're expectations of service and availability from your elected officials are very low.

I want all Americans to be able to run for office and for them to be paid a fair (but not huge) wage to prevent a lot of corruption that occurs when they are too broke to pay their bills because some fool wants to pay them only $100/year.  Most Americans are working class people.  Do you think they are adequately represented by those who are not in this catagory?

Your argument ignores the fact that most of the NH house of reps hold actual jobs, either by being self-employed or working for someone else.  I have pointed out that a few of them even work in Massachusetts, generally in technical jobs.  I didn't feel like data mining the entire roster, but if you'd like to, feel free.

Who in their right mind would quit their job to devote full time to a legislature that only met in formal session for 80 hours this year?  Do you think your constituents would be so dependent on government that you would require 8 hours a day, every day to encourage them to whine to you so you could pass laws to make their lives easier, and justify your $50,000+ a year salary?  That's not how it works there.

Quote
Quote
The 400 representatives does allow people to have easier access to government representatives.

No it doesn't.  It just means you have more people trying to run your life for you.  And if they are only paid $100/year, you really won't have easier access because they'll be at their jobs and with their families and be unavailable to meet with their constituents.
Perhaps they'll have less time to pass stupid anti-liberty laws and raise taxes.

Quote
Having more reps doesn't mean you'll know them better or they'll be more available.  That is a fallacy.
Again, reality counters your claims.  The big cry against the large multi-seat districts is that a town might conceivably not have a rep living in it anymore.  In towns where the rep did live (as had usually been the case until the advent of large multi-seat districts), the rep would go to the town meetings and explain what was going on up in Concord, and field questions from the towns people, in addition to just being around town to run into and talk to.  Now in 8 or so years when NH is redistricted after the next census, perhaps multi-seat districts will fall out of favor.  Perhaps the legislature and governor can get the job done next time instead of leaving it to the courts to impose their will on the people.

This article suggests retail politics remains alive and well, despite the court mandated multi-seat districts.

Another article points out the fear of small towns not being represented in larger multi-seat districts has not happened so far, but the fear is still there.  Republicans, who are no longer saddled with a Democrat governor who threatened to veto every single redistricting plan, want to increase the number of districts again.  Democrats want to eliminate straight ticket voting and fusion, because they feel it works against them.
Logged

Radar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Constitutional Scholar
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #827 on: September 23, 2003, 12:00:23 pm »

Quote
Perhaps they'll have less time to pass stupid anti-liberty laws and raise taxes.

And less ability to remove such laws and promote liberty because they will possess no actual power to make change.  The natural tendency of government is to grow larger and if we don't have people elected to positions where they actually have enough power to create change, government will continue to grow, even in the free state.  This is especially true with a huge legislature like that in New Hampshire.

Quote
Do you think your constituents would be so dependent on government that you would require 8 hours a day, every day to encourage them to whine to you so you could pass laws to make their lives easier, and justify your $50,000+ a year salary?  That's not how it works there.

The job of an elected representative is to be available to the people they represent at all times.  This means when people call, they will be there to answer the phone.  I, like most Americans, expect something from elected officials and having them available is the least of what is expected.  Do you think our elected officials should make themselves unavailable to the people they work for?  Do you think being an elected official is like being in the National Guard where people show up once a month and don't do anything between?  It takes time, effort, hard work, and dedication to serve the public and represent them effectively.  The very least these elected people deserve is to be given a fair wage for what they do.  

And you're right it doesn't work that way in New Hampshire, it doesn't work at all in New Hampshire.   They may be in formal meetings for less than 100 hours per year, but most of the work they do is not in those meetings.  The vast majority is done between those meetings.  For instance if you have constituents who want to know about a particular bill to be voted on.  Or if you have a new law that will harm local business (smoking laws for instance) you might have to meet with the people you work for or do research for them before you go to that formal meeting.

Logged
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

--Satchel Paige


Oh yea, and New Hampshire Sucks!  It's the worst choice for a free state because it offers us the worst chance for success.  - Me

johnadams

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Friend of the FSP, Libertarian
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #828 on: September 23, 2003, 12:02:01 pm »

So did Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bill Gates, and virtually every other person to ever hold leadership positions.  What's your point?
 
My point obviously is that demaguogic tactics are less conducive to productive discussion in a forum like this than civil discourse. Let's move beyond negative generalizations about supporters of certain states and focus on specific facts. Le'ts get over the infighting and focus on ideas, issues, programs, facts, etc.

Quote
OK, then what is your opinion of someone who has read many of your arguments and those of other WY supporters and still voted thusly:

NH>WY>MT>ID>DE>VT>AK>SD>ND>ME  ?

Quote
My opinion of anyone who put New Hampshire first is that they are uninformed at best, probably voting through emotion rather than logic, and are detrimental to the chances of the FSP actually gaining enough power to make change and thereby accomplish our stated goal of true freedom & liberty during our lifetimes.
 
OK, the above is the final vote of Jason Sorens and his wife. Aren't you troubled that the founder of this project and his wife are, in your view, "uninformed at best, probably voting through emotion rather than logic, and are detrimental to the chances of the FSP actually gaining enough power to make change and thereby accomplish our stated goal of true freedom & liberty during our lifetimes"?

Quote
I want all Americans to be able to run for office and for them to be paid a fair (but not huge) wage ....
Which would be how much, would you say, in NH, for example?
Logged
"men are born equally free and independent" - John Adams
World's Smallest Political Quiz

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #829 on: September 23, 2003, 12:50:26 pm »

I'm interested in seeing Radar's response to this post from someone already living in WY:

From www.radiofreewyoming.us

August 27 - Wyoming is under consideration in the Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org) sweepstakes.

Think twice.

Wyoming isn't as freedom-loving as is advertised. There is a "Republican" dominance in most partisan poltical offices, but these are "Rinos" - Republicans in name only. Progressivism is alive and well. Our aw-shucks citizen legislature produces volumes of new laws, and promiscuously accomodates "federal mandates" (seatbelts, child restraints, blood alcohol content legislation).  Any liberal or progressive will be quite at home.

We welcome you, we just don't want you deceived about what you face with the status quo in the Equality State.

Jobs are scarce, and wages are low. Go figure.

PLEASE read Sam Western's "Pushed Off the Mountain - Sold Down the River; Wyoming's Search for its Soul" before you decide. Amazon.

We don't agree entirely with Mr. Western, but you have to read the book if you want to talk or think seriously about Wyoming.  

August 26 - Greetings to and from the "Equality State." The first broadcast is on the anniversary of the 19th Amendment. Wyoming prides itself on being "progressive" and extending the franchise to women in 1890. Wow! It's a bogus claim. Several of the states allowed women to vote immediately after the Revolution. Wyoming needed to count women as "electors" to be considered for statehood. This kind of myth is typical of Wyoming.
Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See?  If not for the government you couldn't walk."

Radar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
  • Constitutional Scholar
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #830 on: September 23, 2003, 03:57:14 pm »

Quote
OK, the above is the final vote of Jason Sorens and his wife. Aren't you troubled that the founder of this project and his wife are, in your view, "uninformed at best, probably voting through emotion rather than logic, and are detrimental to the chances of the FSP actually gaining enough power to make change and thereby accomplish our stated goal of true freedom & liberty during our lifetimes"?

I'm slightly troubled at all those people deluded enough to support New Hampshire as a valid choice when the facts show it shouldn't even be included in the top 10 states.  But I respect the right of others to have their own opinions even if I disagree with that opinion.  I don't, however, sit back idly while others attempt to sway the opinion of someone else by spreading misinformation.  

My hope is that WHEN a western state is chosen, those New Hampshire supporters will come to their senses and realize the project has a far greater chance of success in the west and that they'll be happy the western state won in the long run.

Quote
Which would be how much, would you say, in NH, for example?

I can't give you an exact figure, because that would be open to debate.  But I can say it would be far more money in New Hampshire than in Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, or Montana, especially when the number of seats in the legislature is taken into consideration.

I think it should be the amount it would cost to pay an average mortgage payment in that state, including monthly utility bills, a car payment, groceries, etc. for a man, his wife, and two kids. (a.k.a an average American household)
Logged
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

--Satchel Paige


Oh yea, and New Hampshire Sucks!  It's the worst choice for a free state because it offers us the worst chance for success.  - Me

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #831 on: September 23, 2003, 04:53:29 pm »

Quote
Which would be how much, would you say, in NH, for example?

I can't give you an exact figure, because that would be open to debate.  But I can say it would be far more money in New Hampshire than in Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, or Montana, especially when the number of seats in the legislature is taken into consideration.

I think it should be the amount it would cost to pay an average mortgage payment in that state, including monthly utility bills, a car payment, groceries, etc. for a man, his wife, and two kids. (a.k.a an average American household)

Westerners seem to have a more parasitical attitude toward government than the easterners have. While I agree that the $100/year pay for the NH legislature limits the ability of libertarian working class candidates to deal with the position, I can say that for every one of you, there are 100 potential working class looter candidates who are dissuaded from getting elected. Thus, in the final analysis, the policy works in our favor as an immune system against looter infections in the legislature.

I can also understand the concern westerners have for the higher cost, and standard of living here (while ignoring the higher income). You don't know what might be in store for you here, the old small fish in a big pond syndrome.

I have launched the Galt's Gulch Project to help mitigate the costs of moving. Members who invest in the Galts Gulch Corporation will, if all goes according to plan, obtain prime wilderness in NH at a cost per acre that is extremely low, if not non-existent (the land would be the profit on their investment). Any member moving to NH who invested in this deal would find the move a very profitable one.

I know of no similar land opportunities available in the other states other than Maine.

Nor have any western members made any attempt to plan to mitigate the HUGE impact that losses in income and careers that would occur with the easterners they want to move west. The attitude we seem to see is 'come on out and figure it out for yourselves, we can't be bothered'.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2003, 04:58:54 pm by Mike Lorrey »
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

johnadams

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Friend of the FSP, Libertarian
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #832 on: September 23, 2003, 05:45:16 pm »

I'm slightly troubled at all those people deluded enough to support New Hampshire as a valid choice when the facts show it shouldn't even be included in the top 10 states.  But I respect the right of others to have their own opinions even if I disagree with that opinion.  I don't, however, sit back idly while others attempt to sway the opinion of someone else by spreading misinformation.  

My hope is that WHEN a western state is chosen, those New Hampshire supporters will come to their senses and realize the project has a far greater chance of success in the west and that they'll be happy the western state won in the long run.
Perhaps they are not all deluded, senseless, idiots or liars. Maybe they just disagree with your interpretations of some of the facts, or perhaps they have somewhat different preferences from yours?

Quote
Which would be how much, would you say, in NH, for example?

Quote
I can't give you an exact figure, because that would be open to debate.  But I can say it would be far more money in New Hampshire than in Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, or Montana, especially when the number of seats in the legislature is taken into consideration.

I think it should be the amount it would cost to pay an average mortgage payment in that state, including monthly utility bills, a car payment, groceries, etc. for a man, his wife, and two kids. (a.k.a an average American household)
Well, I know you think the NH legislator salary should be more than $100, and that it should be enough to "pay an average mortgage payment, etc." I don't expect an exact estimate, can you make a rough guess for NH or any of the other states? Do you think it should be higher, lower or just about the same as the mean salary for the state?
Logged
"men are born equally free and independent" - John Adams
World's Smallest Political Quiz

JonM

  • First 1000
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #833 on: September 23, 2003, 05:46:27 pm »

Quote
Perhaps they'll have less time to pass stupid anti-liberty laws and raise taxes.

And less ability to remove such laws and promote liberty because they will possess no actual power to make change.  The natural tendency of government is to grow larger and if we don't have people elected to positions where they actually have enough power to create change, government will continue to grow, even in the free state.  This is especially true with a huge legislature like that in New Hampshire.

I contend it takes far less effort to repeal a bad law than it does to create any law.  How long or often a legislature meets has no bearing on its power.  Massachusetts used to have a part time legislature.  Things have not improved since they went "full time."

Quote
Quote
Do you think your constituents would be so dependent on government that you would require 8 hours a day, every day to encourage them to whine to you so you could pass laws to make their lives easier, and justify your $50,000+ a year salary?  That's not how it works there.

The job of an elected representative is to be available to the people they represent at all times.  This means when people call, they will be there to answer the phone.  I, like most Americans, expect something from elected officials and having them available is the least of what is expected.  Do you think our elected officials should make themselves unavailable to the people they work for?  Do you think being an elected official is like being in the National Guard where people show up once a month and don't do anything between?  It takes time, effort, hard work, and dedication to serve the public and represent them effectively.  The very least these elected people deserve is to be given a fair wage for what they do.  

I do not believe that a representative must be available to his or her constituents 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.  The people of New Hampshire do not appear to believe this either.  If you write to your representative, you can hope he or she will write back (I'm still waiting to hear from my U.S. congressman, whom I wrote to a month and a half ago).  If you wish to call, you can call, the legislature's website lists phone and fax numbers for each rep.  You may run into him or her at the supermarket, or town dump.  If you have a problem you can bring it up.  People who expect their state reps to be full time politicians aren't the ones I thought this project would attract, but hey, I could be wrong.

Quote
And you're right it doesn't work that way in New Hampshire, it doesn't work at all in New Hampshire.   They may be in formal meetings for less than 100 hours per year, but most of the work they do is not in those meetings.  The vast majority is done between those meetings.  For instance if you have constituents who want to know about a particular bill to be voted on.  Or if you have a new law that will harm local business (smoking laws for instance) you might have to meet with the people you work for or do research for them before you go to that formal meeting.

Yes, that is true.  The NH general court's website indicates that body may face as many as 1000 bills a session split out among the 30 or so active committees.  So that might be between 20 and 50 bills for a committee.  Each one has a public hearing so you may need to skip work for a few days to take care of that.  People with an interest will speak at the public hearing, and if you are a responsible legislator, you can do your own research, but it seems many rely on the testimony at the public hearing.  But even still, how are you going to make a whole session's worth of work out of 50 bills?  I guess if you were full time your committee could handle 500 bills a session or more!  Wouldn't that be great?

If you have a legislature that's for all intents and purposes working for gas money, they have no incentive to take longer than they need too.  If you have a legislature that gets paid more for working more, then they very well may work more.  If you pay them enough to actually live off the pay, you will encourage people who have no interest in real work to become legislators, and they will attempt to give you value for your tax dollar in the form of more regulations, more laws, and more taxes.

Given the choice between a part time legislature whose representatives don't even have staffs and a full time legislature with staffs, I'll take the part timers 10 out of 10 times.  And I will fight any effort to make a part time legislature into a full time legislature.  
Logged

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #834 on: September 23, 2003, 06:18:29 pm »

I contend it takes far less effort to repeal a bad law than it does to create any law.

Wrong!

We've been there, and tried that (and even succeeded after a fight). We've also helped pass laws (after we tried to whittle down their anti-liberty parts). ("we" being a couple compatriots on city council with me.)

It is a helluva lot harder to repeal a law than to pass it in the first place.

An existing law has grown a large, entrenched, vehement, powerful lobby of backers.  They fight tooth and nail to prevent its repeal.

Suggestion...
Get elected to even a minor legislative council or board and try out what you say is so easy.  Or be a friend and ally of a member thereof who is trying to do what you say.
You may learn enough to honestly help in the chosen state.
Logged

johnadams

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Friend of the FSP, Libertarian
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #835 on: September 23, 2003, 06:31:43 pm »

I contend it takes far less effort to repeal a bad law than it does to create any law.  How long or often a legislature meets has no bearing on its power.
I actually think it takes far more effort to repeal a law than to pass one. That is why the number of laws continues to grow in every state and in the federal government. However, if the FSP is successful and many laws are repealed, then the legislators won't have much to do to justify a full-time legislature. Perhaps Radar would not have a problem with a part-time legislature in a state that had successfully repealed many of its laws and was not looking to create any new ones? After all, what would a full-time Free State legislature do with their time once they made all the changes that Radar wants, twiddle their thumbs?

Also, much time is wasted in state legislatures and the federal Congress on mundane, useless nuttiness, like officially declaring a day "Sadie Hawkins Day" or naming the state insect. Then, on the last few days before the session ends, boatloads of legislation are hurried through. I think one new law that should be added is that the Free State legislature not spend any more time naming days and state cookies and the like. They could cede that responsibility to a voluntary group made up of little old ladies in flower bonnets. :)

Quote
Massachusetts used to have a part time legislature.  Things have not improved since they went "full time."
Correct. State legislatures usually go full time when the government has become too large and unwieldy to be managed by a part-time legislature. A part-time legislature indicates a small government, since a PT legislature simply cannot manage a massive state bureaucracy. A full time legislature is also favored by people who want to build lifelong political careers and make decent dough doing it. A full time legislature also tends to have paid staff who can harass businesses and interest groups for contributions throughout the year. And it can extort money from businesses on a daily basis if desired, by threatening to pass the latest statist bill that comes up. It essentially becomes a year-round extortion racket, as any candid insider in Sacramento, CA or Washington, D.C. can tell you. I learned about how such things work first-hand from a candid lobbyist in Washington back in the 1980's.

Quote
Do you think your constituents would be so dependent on government that you would require 8 hours a day, every day to encourage them to whine to you so you could pass laws to make their lives easier, and justify your $50,000+ a year salary?  That's not how it works there.

Quote
The job of an elected representative is to be available to the people they represent at all times.  This means when people call, they will be there to answer the phone.  I, like most Americans, expect something from elected officials and having them available is the least of what is expected.
So do a lot of other people. Most of them call for favors and pork for themselves, their interest group, and their locality or state. Full-time politicians hand out the goodies and use this power to build their careers and line their own pockets.

Quote
Do you think our elected officials should make themselves unavailable to the people they work for?
After the FSP eliminates many of the goodies, taxes and laws, privatizes the roads, etc., what will be left for them to do that they need to be in the state house on a daily basis?

Quote
Do you think being an elected official is like being in the National Guard where people show up once a month and don't do anything between?  It takes time, effort, hard work, and dedication to serve the public and represent them effectively.  The very least these elected people deserve is to be given a fair wage for what they do.  
You sure make politicians sound good, Radar. You're the first libertarian I've come across who used the words "effort, hard work, and dedication" in relation to politicians. ;) The main job of the libertarian-oriented FSP state reps will be to make their jobs as unnecessary as possible.

Quote
If you write to your representative, you can hope he or she will write back (I'm still waiting to hear from my U.S. congressman, whom I wrote to a month and a half ago).
From my experience, our full-time legislators here in MA don't seem to be any more responsive than the part-time legislators in VT. They do seem to be more beholden to powerful monied interests and more arrogant.

Quote
People who expect their state reps to be full time politicians aren't the ones I thought this project would attract, but hey, I could be wrong.
Me neither. I've seen some arguments in these fora that I never thought I'd see coming from libertarians. It has been rather eye-opening.

Quote
If you have a legislature that's for all intents and purposes working for gas money, they have no incentive to take longer than they need too.  If you have a legislature that gets paid more for working more, then they very well may work more.  If you pay them enough to actually live off the pay, you will encourage people who have no interest in real work to become legislators, and they will attempt to give you value for your tax dollar in the form of more regulations, more laws, and more taxes.
Yes, I've noticed this too. In a part-time legislature things get done more efficiently because there is more incentive to do so, and there tend to be more small business people and small farmers among the members, whereas a FT legislature tends to be made up of attorneys who become career politicians. After they retire from politics they start a small business or a farm and say, "I had no idea we were making it this difficult for small business people," because they have little or no real world experience.

Quote
Given the choice between a part time legislature whose representatives don't even have staffs and a full time legislature with staffs, I'll take the part timers 10 out of 10 times.  And I will fight any effort to make a part time legislature into a full time legislature.  
I think that 9.9 out of 10 libertarians would probably agree with you, Jon, including the leadership of the national Libertarian Party.

Radars aruments have been so bizarre and anti-libertarian, and presented in such an uncivil manner generally, that I'm beginning to wonder if he might be a NH supporter in WY clothing. I've seen libertarians argue for converting a FT legislature into a PT one, but never the reverse.
Logged
"men are born equally free and independent" - John Adams
World's Smallest Political Quiz

jgmaynard

  • FSP Shadow Advertising
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2288
    • The Light of Alexandria
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #836 on: September 23, 2003, 07:05:30 pm »

The New Hampshire contigent holds no responsibility for planting our secret agent, Radar, amongst the masses, with or without the cooperation of the French Mofia, Skull and Cross bones, or any personnel of Area 51. ;D  :P

And actually, the public servents in New Hampshire are expected by the public to be responsive at all times,  though all the elected people I know tell me it's about the same as a part time job, or a really serious hobby; couple hours a day. Nothing you should be paid well for. :)

JM
« Last Edit: September 23, 2003, 07:08:25 pm by jgmaynard »
Logged
The Light of Alexandria By James Maynard

A history of the first 1,000 years of science, and how it changed the ancient world, and our world today.



http://www.lightofalexandria.com

Dave Mincin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
  • I'm a llama!
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #837 on: September 23, 2003, 07:37:42 pm »

Wow...public service!!! ???....Seems I heard something about that....way back...like perhaps around 1776 or so, volunteer you time....serve the public interest...then go back to doing what you do for a living!!! ;D

Career politicians?  Is that the future of the Free State?  I hope not! ;D

Pay them little and make them work like the rest of us do.  NH has the right idea there, the same one the Founding Fathers had! ;D
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!

johnadams

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Friend of the FSP, Libertarian
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #838 on: September 23, 2003, 07:55:34 pm »

Let's see, lengthen the NH state house session and raise the salaries of the state reps from $100 to a liveable wage, say $30 - $40,000/year. That's more money, which of course means more tax revenues needed to pay the salaries and operating expenses. ...  Wow! Radar is proposing paying MORE taxes in NH. It's going to be pretty funny with 99.9% of the Porcs working to reduce government and lower taxes on one hand, and on the other, Radar and his friends stubbornly working in the opposite direction!  ;D
Logged
"men are born equally free and independent" - John Adams
World's Smallest Political Quiz

JonM

  • First 1000
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
Re:NH vs WY
« Reply #839 on: September 23, 2003, 09:09:50 pm »

I contend it takes far less effort to repeal a bad law than it does to create any law.

Wrong!

We've been there, and tried that (and even succeeded after a fight). We've also helped pass laws (after we tried to whittle down their anti-liberty parts). ("we" being a couple compatriots on city council with me.)

It is a helluva lot harder to repeal a law than to pass it in the first place.

An existing law has grown a large, entrenched, vehement, powerful lobby of backers.  They fight tooth and nail to prevent its repeal.

Suggestion...
Get elected to even a minor legislative council or board and try out what you say is so easy.  Or be a friend and ally of a member thereof who is trying to do what you say.
You may learn enough to honestly help in the chosen state.

My apologies.  In the context in which I was addressing Radar I was responding to his claim that we need full time highly paid legislators with big staffs so they can do the research necessary to craft involved, complex, useless laws.  My contention, which I agree was poorly worded, is that it does not take a full time legislature with big staffs of highly paid assistants to repeal laws the majority of the population considers to be 'bad' laws.

You are correct that it will take much effort to educate the population to support the concept of more liberty and greater freedom, to the point that they agree with the porcupines that certain laws are "bad."  You cannot simply win a majority and start repealing laws wily-nily without public support behind you.  You will be denounced as a radical and your message of liberty and personal responsibility will be lost.  While some don't seem to like the idea of going after the low hanging fruit first, the laws already considered 'bad' by the majority of population, I am not one of them.  I think going after the really stupid, inane, 'why is this still on the books' laws first, in order to build credibility and a track record of not being some sort of fringe radical, is the best way to go.  Your milage may vary.

But if after the neccessary legwork required to win the support of the populace has been done, it will be easier to build the majorities required to repeal those laws that are only then accepted as 'bad.'  

I believe that whole effort will be more hindered by a full time legislature, rather than helped by it.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2003, 09:12:23 pm by JonM »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59   Go Up