Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: The case for New Hampshire  (Read 55536 times)

Dave Mincin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
  • I'm a llama!
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2003, 07:48:40 pm »

Alec,

Don't have the intellect, knowledge, or political savey, that you have or most of the folks out there do, but my momma taught me a long time ago to "don't go were your not wanted son"  So I'm hopeful that the group choses New Hampshire, because I believe we are wanted there.

And not being a scholar, all things considered want to go were I am wanted!
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!

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #46 on: January 29, 2003, 02:05:16 am »

Don't have the intellect, knowledge, or political savey, that you have or most of the folks out there do, but my momma taught me a long time ago to "don't go were your not wanted son"  So I'm hopeful that the group choses New Hampshire, because I believe we are wanted there.

And not being a scholar, all things considered want to go were I am wanted!

Well, the NHLP certainly wants us, but they may be operating under the assumption that we're all going to be straight LP supporters, I don't know.  As far as the rest of the state goes, that's hard to say; at least one New Hampshire resident has written on this forum that he is not looking for the FSP to go there.  See the following thread for that discussion:

What about being an unwelcome presence?

Jason once received a negative response from a Montana resident that he shared on the Yahoo list, but he may have received others as well.  The only state that I've heard of so far that has acknowledged the possibility of our coming in any official capacity is Wyoming.  The Wyoming federal attorney said we were welcome there as long as we obeyed federal law like everyone else.

It's too bad we can't poll the residents of these various states to see what sort of reception we'd find there.  On the whole, there are only two real criteria we can go by on that score: 1) What % of the population is native to that state, 2) What trends appear in that state's political history.  Both of these may determine how a state's current residents might receive the FSP.

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #47 on: January 29, 2003, 08:49:56 am »

I think the NHLP has been more welcoming because they got an early jump on the other states.  Some of the first FSP members were major figures in the NHLP.  However, some of the other states are starting to come around.  I'm hoping the NHLP's and ME LP's announcements will provide the added incentive for them to make a serious effort to bring us in.
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

Dave Mincin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
  • I'm a llama!
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #48 on: January 29, 2003, 12:53:21 pm »

RobertH, Jason,

I appreciate your input.  Perhaps in time as the word spreads more states will become  supportive of our effort, but I must go with what I see.

I too have given Idaho much consideration as our state of destination, and could live with that choice, my major concern there, is Federal land ownership.

As I read the various threads, and follow the debates, east-west, cold-warm, statists-freedom loving, urban-rural, etc. sometimes I must admit I feel overwhelmed!

But as I look at the various statics, and information available, I can't help but think the most serious division is urban-rural, and again that brings me to NH.  I believe that NH offers us the best of both worlds, something for everyone so to speak!

Again I thank you for your response and welcome your thoughts!
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 #49 on: January 29, 2003, 03:11:49 pm »

Quote
The Wyoming federal attorney said we were welcome there as long as we obeyed federal law like everyone else.

Nice of him to remind us about the law. Now if we could get the federal government to obey federal law (e.g., the Constitution), then we'd have something!   ::)

Of course, we can't take the opinions of a few individuals as a measure of how welcome we'd be in a state - least of all that of the slimebags in government.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #50 on: January 30, 2003, 04:02:24 am »

Quote
The Wyoming federal attorney said we were welcome there as long as we obeyed federal law like everyone else.

Nice of him to remind us about the law. Now if we could get the federal government to obey federal law (e.g., the Constitution), then we'd have something!   ::)

That would be nice, wouldn't it?  

Quote
Of course, we can't take the opinions of a few individuals as a measure of how welcome we'd be in a state - least of all that of the slimebags in government.

True.  Of course, in this instance, the person speaking was a fairly significant public official, so he could certainly have used his position to harm our cause if he had chosen to do so.  The fact that he didn't surprised me a bit at the time.

Dave Mincin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
  • I'm a llama!
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #51 on: January 30, 2003, 05:57:26 pm »

Help!!!!   Maybe I'm missing something. but what does the federal attorney in Wyoming have to do with NH?
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!

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #52 on: January 31, 2003, 04:47:57 am »

Help!!!!   Maybe I'm missing something. but what does the federal attorney in Wyoming have to do with NH?

It was mentioned in regard to going where we are wanted.  This topic brought up the issue of who wants us, and from there, what response we've seen from states thus far.  The Wyoming federal attorney was mentioned because this is, to my understanding, the only time an actual state representative of some type has acknowledged and said anything about the FSP and whether or not it would be welcome.

Other responses have come from individuals and from LP and Constitution party members, but not from state government or officials.

enewhouse

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • East or West?
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #53 on: February 05, 2003, 12:51:30 am »

Hi,
My name is Eric, at the moment I live in Montana just minutes from Wyoming. I have resided here for approx. 15 years now. My first 21 years, I grew up in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. I have personally experienced the best and worst of both places and I could speak for hours on the subject. To keep it short and sweet I would like to make two very obvious statements.
One - The economy out west will absolutly work against the goals of the FSP period.  I have been very fortunate with my business in Montana but believe me, worrying about putting food on the table is a very common family practice out west and can blur the vision and cripple the spirit of well intentioned individuals.

Two - Now we want to get together with our members to plan, rally and meet one another, in a place like New Hampshire the longest one would travel to get to say Concord is 2 Hrs. You could do this with very little notice even during the week. Now try Wyoming or Montana. You may want to take a day off of work (If you can afford to) and then plan to stay for the weekend as a 7 Hr trip is possible and 4 to 5 hrs is likely. These are very serious considerations if this project is going to come to fruition.

Sincerly yours,
Eric

Ps. If NH is chosen I'll would move my family tomorrow, for this project could definately work there.
Logged
I've lived in NH and MA for 21 Years. I now live with my wife and 5 Children in Montana just north of the Wyoming Border. I love my home but if I'm going to relocate my entire family to help the FSP become a reality, I would have to choose New Hampshire!  (read my post to find out why.)

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #54 on: February 05, 2003, 03:34:16 am »

Welcome, Eric.   :)  Your experience with both regions could prove very useful here.

As for economic conditions in parts of the west, the FSP should have quite a lot to offer in the next few years for improving this situation, and there has been much discussion of starting businesses and otherwise investing in our new location already.  This will be an important part of our acceptance no matter where we go, but it seems logical that it would help us even more in the west where the population is not as affluent.

In regard to porcupine meetings in the chosen state, most of our activism should initially be confined to our own localities.  It wouldn't be wise to try making too big of a scene on the state level when we first arrive, and the meat of the reforms we'll be trying to enact will involve campaigning and otherwise working for support on the local level anyway.  There shouldn't be much of a need to mass our numbers together on a state-wide basis very often.  

And based on what we can see about the demographics of our group, I'd imagine that we'd be more or less regionally concentrated (depending on the state).  For instance, in Wyoming most of our members would probably live in or near Cheyenne and Casper, which would put them three hours or so apart.  This should be fine for the purposes of annual or biannual meetings, which would probably last a day or so anyway.  Otherwise, our local focus would naturally lead us to meet in smaller groups in our own communities.

Even in a small state like New Hampshire, I doubt we'd see many mass FSP meetings.  Having one every now and then would be beneficial, but doing it too often might make us come across as another meddlesome special interest group scheming about how to steal politics "from the people."  We'd probably be more effective by operating as smaller groups broken down into various communites.  It would be more difficult for opposition forces to make us look like a political boogeyman of some sort than it would be if we were always massed together.

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #55 on: February 05, 2003, 07:44:54 am »

Regarding the often cited Presidential results in New Hampshire and Maine. I'm under the impression that both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were likely hurt by almost a personal grudge by many people in NH and ME against them. Could it have been their hottie tottie attitude and estate in Kennebunkport which rubbed many traditional New Englanders wrong? Could most any other Republican have done much better -- such as McCain did in NH?

Just on this point...There's a funny little anecdote I heard from one of the NPR reporters, who worked at the Concord Monitor for a while.  The Manchester Union-Leader is an iconoclastic conservative newspaper, a bit wacky apparently.  They endorsed Buchanan in both '92 and '96.  Anyway, the elderly lady who owns the Union-Leader wrote a front-page editorial when President Clinton came to the state near the end of his presidency.  The headline screamed, "CLINTON GO HOME!"  Protestors showed up to his speeches and held up the newspaper.

Those cussed New Englanders are tough to figure out, aren't they? ;)
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

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 #56 on: February 05, 2003, 08:49:36 am »

The case for New Hampshire is made quite convincingly on this web page:  ;)


http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm
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

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #57 on: February 05, 2003, 12:13:11 pm »

I find it disconcerting that Bob Smith, who was the most libertarian senator there was, was cast aside for Sununu, who is obviously much more liberal than Smith.  

Smith, with his quixotic presidential bid and subsequent poor judgement in leaving the Republican party and then returning, had become something of an embarassment. He showed too much emotional instability, appearing flaky and - particularly in the campaign and absolutely after his defeat - at times petty, immature and bitter.

Besides, considering some of Smith's environmental and social positions, I would hardly consider him "the most libertarian senator there was". Sununu is likely to come closer to this than did Smith.

Eric
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 #58 on: February 05, 2003, 12:17:16 pm »

The LPNH Welcome to the Granite State Committee needs your help in welcoming the Free State Project to NH!

If you are a New Hampshire resident, and support the Free State Project, please add your information to our LPNH-FSP networking database:

http://www.lpnh.org/lpnh-fsp-db.htm

Thanks so much! :)
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

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:The case for New Hampshire
« Reply #59 on: February 05, 2003, 12:48:31 pm »

I've posted this thought in another place or two, but believe that it is most appropriate to post it here as well:

When it comes to having privacy/seclusion, looking at numbers describing population density can be deceptive. Some have mentioned the crowding in some areas of the West and attributed it to the large Federal landholdings. Having grown up in ID and now living in NH, I suggest that seclusion isn't simply a matter of how much land you own, it's more relative.

For example - in much of the West, in areas where the vast majority of the population lives, the topography is mostly relatively flat valley floors and high plains, with the wealthier subdivisions spreading into the foothills. By far most of these areas involve houses on 1/4, 1/2, up to maybe 5 acre plots in the ritzier developments. If you want any degree of physical privacy/seclusion you have to find the rare topographically favorable spot, buy 20+ acres, and/or live in the mountains (which I love, but availability of which is also limited - particularly considering how much is federally owned).

Right now my family is in a house on only 2.7 acres, about 2 miles from the 'quaint New England' downtown area of a city of over 30,000 in Southern NH. We live on a quiet cul-de-sac with 4 other families in houses within ~100 yards, and with the exception of the house directly across the street (which we can partially see through the trees) we can't even see our neighbor's houses from ours. Lots within a mile of our house range from roughly 1/2 to 80+ acres.

At the same time, we live 1/3 mile from a park with a nice playground, about 1 mile (or 1/2 mile, if you cut through the woods) from our kids' schools, and about 1/2 mile from the nearest post office and fire station. There are a few ponds within 2 miles, one with both a town and private beach and others more secluded. I run on trails through the woods which are lightly used by horseback riders, joggers and cyclists, and frequently include the Robert Frost farm in my route.

In summary, in order to get a comparable amount of privacy/seclusion which the heavy forestation in New England provides, you have to own many, many more acres of land and/or live much further from any population centers in the West. For some people this difference will be very important in terms of balancing desire for privacy/seclusion with opportunities for employment and family quality-of-life issues.

In this sense the harsh winters can actually be a good thing as well - nothing makes people tend to keep to themselves as much as a good old midwinter Nor' Easter! After which the kids can skate and play hockey on the ponds, the ice fishermen are out in force, and kids can build snow forts and go tubing/sledding in the neighborhood.

Eric
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 12   Go Up