Free State Project Chooses Granite State

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:00:00 GMT
PR Newswire - Free State Project Picks New Hampshire - it's official. Should the FSP get 20,000 members, they will move to the Live Free or Die state. [smith2004]

Joanna Walters at Guardian Unlimited - 'Free staters' pick New Hampshire to liberate for sex, guns and drugs - a view from a socialist across the pond. I read that Ms. Walters promised not to print this story on-line until after the 11am eastern time press conference at which the winning state was announced. It went online before 11am. [smith2004]

A libertarian movement promoting "minimalist government", the free market, drugs, prostitution and gun ownership plans to infiltrate New Hampshire to create a breakaway American regime, its leaders will announce today.

Eric Raymond - Statism -- Love It Or Leave It - Mr. Raymond likes the idea of the Free State Project. This article was written before the winning state was announced. [smith2004]

What could be more American than migrating to a thinly-settled area to experiment with liberty? And this time we won't have to kill off the natives, because they're not going to be organizing any scalping parties. Most of the states under consideration have a strong local libertarian tradition, and none of them are going to look askance at the sort of bright, hardworking, highly-skilled people most likely to be pro-freedom activists.

Some people won't like this idea, though. The national media establishment, which is statist down to its bones even in the few crevices where it isn't leftist, will inevitably try to portray the Free State migrants as a bunch of racist conservative redneck gun-nuts (all these terms being effectively synonymous in the national media) intent on turning the poor victim state into one gigantic Aryan Nations compound (especially if it's Idaho, as it could be). Expect network-news interviews with locals teary-eyed with worry that the incomers will be hosting regular cross-burnings on the courthouse lawn. Awkward little inconsistencies like the libertarian opposition to drug laws, censorship, and theocracy will be ignored. This prospect is especially ironic because, in most of the possible target states, it is our lifestyle liberalism that is actually most likely to produce a culture clash with the natives.

The more intelligent members of the political class won't like this either. The brighter and better-able one is to extrapolate second-and-third-order effects, the more likely the potential success of libertarianism at a state level is likely to scare them -- conservatives nearly as much as liberals, and conservatives perhaps more so when we challenge them to emulate our success with small-government policies that they speak but don't really mean.

GeekWithA.45 - Response From The High Road - worth writing in gold. I'm quoting the whole thing. [geekwitha.45]

Summary of Question: (From this thread)
Is The Bill of Rights - Protected from Repeal/Change?

My Response:

I'm Gonna Be Blunt:

There is probably no Constitutional reason that the Bof R can't be Amended.

Amending the Constitution is difficult, and ignoring it is easy, and in some parts of the country, ignoring the Constitution is normal operating procedure.

The Bill of Rights does not Create rights, it protects them, and these rights exist whether they are enumerated or not, whether they are respected or not by those wielding power, and even whether the People as a whole want them or not.

They exist as earthly fact so long as one human being recognizes their existence.

Our founding documents protect this last lonely, brave human being against all of the rest.

And even if this last, lonely human should fall before the howling horde, they continue to exist as theory, to be rediscovered by the children of these deranged hypothetical people.

If any one of the Bill of Rights is deleted or diminished in any way through an act of Congress, and ratified by the States, this will mean that the US of A has abandoned even the pretense of its founding principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and the validity of the entire contract, would thus be rendered doubtful, and therefore void.

On that day, America will no longer be it's own worthy heir.

On the next day, there will be blood.

The Second Amendment is an intrinsic, inextricable part of the system of checks and balances upon which our Republic is based.

Attempts to Infringe upon it are an attempt to renegotiate the One True Contract between We The People, and our government.

Nothing Less Than The Integrity Of The Republic Is At Stake.

Garry Reed, The Loose Cannon Libertarian - Bootleg Butts and the Power Wonks - why raising cigarette taxes increases smoking. And why Mr. Reed needs another cigarette.

High Tax Blamed For Rise In Smoking

My first reaction to that Daily Mail headline was the classic furrowed-brow slack-jawed squinty-eyed "Huh?" How does raising cigarette taxes cause increased smoking? Wouldn't higher taxes cause decreased smoking? Eventually, 100 watts of GE Soft White winked on above my head. Of course. Smuggling. Seems the Brits had just discovered the Law of Unintended Consequences. Jacking up cigarette taxes made it profitable to sell bootlegged smokes on the black market (or what libertarians fittingly call the Free Market).

But while smuggling makes cigarettes cheaper, how does it increase the actual number of smokers? One way, the article enlightens us, is the practice of hawking cigarettes out the back of vans to school children. Surprise! Smuggling drives out legitimate business and attracts less virtuous entrepreneurs.

NotAtYou - The Last Word - opinions on some of the issues of the day. I couldn't find a permanent link for this, so it will probably change to a new essay at some point in the not too distant future.

The Question: Should abortion be illegal? Why?

No. Abortion should be 100% legal as it is. The reasoning behind this conclusion is simple: Would you want to push a watermelon out of your crotch? If you said "yes," you are a liar or a freak. If you said "no," as any reasonable person would, then you see where I'm going. No one should be forced by law to expel a watermelon from their crotch. The experience could easily turn life-threatening and such a risk cannot be logically supported by legislation.


The Question: Wasn't this country founded on religious principles?

No. This country was founded on the principle that when you come to a new place you should kill the inhabitants and take their stuff. Now, unless that is considered a "religious" principle (which is debatable), you need to shut up.


The Question: Is being gay a choice?

No. It is not a choice. I say this because I, as a heterosexual, cannot choose to find a man sexually attractive. Similarly, can those of you who contend that it IS a choice choose not to be f***ing idiots? See? Its all the same.


The Question: Are women still victims of oppression?

I'm sure they are, yes. But, have you ever listened to a feminist? They get on my nerves man. I'd almost go out and start oppressing out of spite.


The Question: Should guns be outlawed among the general public? Why?

Of course they shouldn't be outlawed. Since when does outlawing something keep the wrong people from getting a hold of it? Hmmm...well, narcotics are illegal, but who has a firm grip on those? Come on, people. Making something illegal simply makes it more fun to have, and does little to make it more difficult to get. And, looking at this critically, who are the people that are murdering others with guns? Are they upstanding citizens who went through the proper channels to purchase a gun? Hell no...they are low-rent criminals who bought the gun out of the trunk of some other guy's car. No, making car-trunks illegal won't help.

Add comment Edit post Add post