Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[StevenN]

This seems to be the crux of the NH debate. It's not that the people of NH aren't liberty-friendly, but that it will be "invaded" by citizens from neighboring states. A faulty assumption is that, since these citizens come from "statist" states, they themselves must be statist.

But let's take a look at the videotape.

We have heard from numerous sources "on the ground" that this is not a "statist" invasion. Bostonians and some VT'ers generally look down on NH. Talking to them, you'd think that moving to NH would be like moving to Grozny. It makes sense, of course. Statists like the statist policies in their statist states (is that an anamonapea? ).

Now, lets go back to our sources "on the ground". They all say that your average immigrant from MA or VT is likely to be a tax-refugee that would be very supportive of our cause. In fact, a poster here (heyduke) from NH who seemed to be not to friendly to the FSP said that these were mainly liberty-friendly tax refugees.

Or notice that where liberty is making the most progress is in southern NH!

Now, I think the recent immigration #'s for NH were about 7,000 a year. If only several dozen of these were freedom-friendly, it would have a neutral effect on our "effectiveness". I would think that at least several hundred - if not thousands - of these immigrants are FSP-friendly, which would actually improve our population ratios. It was said earlier that NH would be great for 40,000 activists. Well, with the flood of "refugees" from its neighbors (plus the home-grown native activists not counted here), I could see NH getting that 40,000 in eight years! Could it be that the immigration into NH could have provide incredible benefit to NH if it is the free state?!

I actually believe this immigration is a huge plus for NH.

[pond]

(is that an anamonapea? ).

I think it's alliteration, but your point is a good one. The ammount of immigration to New Hampshire shouldn't be considered at all, really, because it's uncertain. But if it is to be considered you have to think like a statist. They're lazy and enjoy being taken care of. You never hear of statists braving the frontier to bring their social safety nets to the borders of civilization. Why on earth would anyone be moving to New Hampshire if not to escape the stifling urbanization?
You also have to consider our final goals. If we're aiming to get in to a state, free it, and shut the door behind us I want no part of it. By the very nature of the project we're assuming that a free state will attract freedom loving people, so it would be contradictory to assume an already partially free state wouldn't attract similarly freedom loving people.

[jgmaynard]

A good concrete example of this is the fact that NH was the last state to actually ELECT a Libertarian state rep (Steve Vaillancourt in 2000). He was elected from Manchester - Not only the largest city in the state, but also, with Nashua, the center of the migration from Mass. If they're statists, why are they electing Libertarians?

JM

[ZionCurtain]

(is that an anamonapea? ).

I think it's alliteration, but your point is a good one. The ammount of immigration to New Hampshire shouldn't be considered at all, really, because it's uncertain. But if it is to be considered you have to think like a statist. They're lazy and enjoy being taken care of. You never hear of statists braving the frontier to bring their social safety nets to the borders of civilization. Why on earth would anyone be moving to New Hampshire if not to escape the stifling urbanization?
You also have to consider our final goals. If we're aiming to get in to a state, free it, and shut the door behind us I want no part of it. By the very nature of the project we're assuming that a free state will attract freedom loving people, so it would be contradictory to assume an already partially free state wouldn't attract similarly freedom loving people.

So you move to a dinky state with over a million people to get away from urbanization? Terrible logic. Also where do the freedom lovers that we attrect move to when the place is full?

[pond]

So you move to a dinky state with over a million people to get away from urbanization? Terrible logic. Also where do the freedom lovers that we attrect move to when the place is full?

Urbanization implies massive cities. Don't quite see where you miss the logic that a state where the largest city has a projected pop. of under 100,000 is appealing to people who dont want to live in a bleak concrete jungle.

[Zxcv]

Well, the concern about invasion of statists is not that unreasonable. There are other states that have suffered this fate, Colorado and Nevada being examples. Just read some of Vin Suprynowicz' stuff. It does happen under certain circumstances.

Whether it's happening or can happen in NH is another question.

Statists don't necessarily stay only in statist states (what a sentence). They don't like paying taxes more than anyone else, for example. They just want other people to pay taxes.

Normally, you'd expect invasion of statists to be happening when you have a healthy economy, while the statist economies nearby are suffering. That condition would attract economic refugees. Another example would be if you were a destination for retirees who might be ignorant of the consequences of statist policies.

Of course it is hard to guage the political tendencies of people who move to your state. So you never know - until years later when they've been voting in elections for a while.

[Reaper]

Last I heard the immigration to NH was 20k a year, obviously mostly statists since quite simply the majority of the overall population are so.

This would make the FSP irrelevant in NH.  They get 20k infused every year of mostly statists so a one time influx of 20k non statists would simple be a brief shrug to the system and then within a year we'll have an equal influx of statists and within 2 years twice as many.

[pond]

Last I heard the immigration to NH was 20k a year, obviously mostly statists since quite simply the majority of the overall population are so.

There's no basis for that assumption. Most people are lazy and when their activists are statists they admittedly work toward statist goals but one of the founding ideas of FSP is that inert populations are open to suggestion by a strong activist force for freedom. Again I ask you "do we expect to have a zero immigration rate change after our activities?" It's naive to think that there won't be massive influxes of people if we succeed in deregulating the economy of a state. Our free state, regardless of location, will have large hippie colonies moving in on the basis of our drug stance alone. We just have to assume that freedom will make sense and breed more freedom after the people get a taste of it, or else the FSP is doomed to be self suffocating anyway.

[Mickey]

This would make the FSP irrelevant in NH.  They get 20k infused every year of mostly statists so a one time influx of 20k non statists would simple be a brief shrug to the system and then within a year we'll have an equal influx of statists and within 2 years twice as many.

That would assume that all twenty thousand of those people are political activists. That could only happen if there was another political migration project like our own and if such a thing were to exist, they would probably not go to NH. Certainly of those 20k migrants you're worried about, not more than a hundred or so are dedicated political activists. And along with those it seem logical to believe that an equal or greater amount would be liberty activists. It would take a very long time for statists to catch up to us without a 'Progressive State Project' targeting our same state(which would be a bad stratigic move on their part).

[ZionCurtain]

So you move to a dinky state with over a million people to get away from urbanization? Terrible logic. Also where do the freedom lovers that we attrect move to when the place is full?

Urbanization implies massive cities. Don't quite see where you miss the logic that a state where the largest city has a projected pop. of under 100,000 is appealing to people who dont want to live in a bleak concrete jungle.

I though the southern part of NH was a part of the Boston MSA. Which means it is a suburb.

[jgmaynard]

I though the southern part of NH was a part of the Boston MSA. Which means it is a suburb.

Nope. Not even close. There's about a 45 min drive from even the OUTSKIRTS of the Boston MSA to the NH line. It's filled with trees, rivers, and ponds. It's the area where Emerson spent his time in the woods, you drive through the still small towns of Concord and Lexington, where the first revolution started. It is still a beautiful area. Of course, then you hit New Hampshire, and things become even more beautiful.

www.freestatenhlive.com has web cams from around the state. You can look for yourself.

Now, you can rest assured that not only is southern NH not a suburb of Boston, but even most of Mass isn't.

JM

[jgmaynard]

From http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6224648.htm

"Politically, the proportion of independents among New Hampshire's 690,159 registered voters has increased, from 36.5 percent to 37.7 percent. Republican strength has held steady at 36.7 percent but the number of Democrats has dropped, from 27 percent to 25.6 percent. Independents can vote in the primary."

For those who prefer Republicans OR Independents (as I do) this is a great sign for New Hampshire as our state of choice. This is over two years, and shows there is NO statist migration, but a migration of independent minded folks, freed from the chains of the political duopoly.

JM

[schletty]

We have a tendency to speak of an influx of people in stark terms: "freedom-loving or "not freedom-loving." My concern is that what I see in the population is much more hypocritical, usually loving and clinging to their own individual favorite freedoms while looking with suspicion on the freedoms of people unlike themselves.

One of my biggest (although not paralyzing) fears with the project (not just in NH) is that we willl attract large numbers of those who come seeking to enjoy their own freedom at the expense of another. Couldn't their numbers and resistance to others' freedoms make a larger libertarian agenda moot? Even if they are not all activists, it seems as though it could take only a couple of years for such a blurring to occur. Hopefully, the larger message gets out before that dynamic occurs.

[jgmaynard]

Sorry, schletty.... I'm not quite catching what you are saying.... Could you provide an example of a theoretical situation, please? For instance, are you saying that the free state might be invaded my people who come for the lax cannabis laws, but want high taxes for governmental handouts?

JM

[JonM]

Sorry, schletty.... I'm not quite catching what you are saying.... Could you provide an example of a theoretical situation, please? For instance, are you saying that the free state might be invaded my people who come for the lax cannabis laws, but want high taxes for governmental handouts?

JM

I could see that argument, but then, you're assuming they'd actually remember when to show up and vote.