Libertarians moving into New Hampshire -- Free State Project

[sgthoskins]

Just calling it like I see it. You've been here a few days and 3 of your 5 posts are against the FSP.

I'm just someone who wants people to leave me alone and not steal my money.

[Colebrook]

Originally Posted by sgthoskins

Just calling it like I see it. You've been here a few days and 3 of your 5 posts are against the FSP.

I'm just someone who wants people to leave me alone and not steal my money.

I'm with you Sarge. I want government to stay out of my wallet. I also want them to adhere to the constitution the way it was written. Not the way some liberal thinks it should be. As far as gun toting goes that is a constitutional right given to us by our founding fathers.

[greenmartian]

Originally Posted by rscalzo

We really need more kooks running around with the guns hanging off their hips trying to instigate a police involvement so they have a new video for their YouTube site. They distrust everyone and everybody way too often. The oddballs overshadow the normal members of the group. we don't need people moving into the state telling everyone how they should be living.

You couldn't be more wrong. Why don't you go to Murphy's in Manchester on a Tuesday night. It's called Taproom Tuesdays. Lots of Free Staters hang out there and you can go and meet them. I think you will be very surprised at how nice and welcoming they are.

Home | Murphy's Taproom

[greenmartian]

Originally Posted by GHouse

Well, I think that article is out of date, if not just plain wrong. Note that Sununu is no longer our Senator and all or representatives in congress are Dems for the first time. (not to mention our Gov and the majority of State Reps) I'd like to see the election results for 2008 by town, considering that.
Also I don't doubt that some percentage of Ma refugees are conservatives looking to escape liberal Ma, but that's not the only reason people from down there move up here. There's also a fair amount of people working in the greater Boston area who live here because it's nicer than down there, not all of whom are R's and there's a portion who are retirees who are also looking for a more rural life. (never mind that the more that move here the less rural it gets...)

In any case, it doesn't really matter if the majority of Democratic immigrants are from Ma or not. The point was that more Dems are moving to NH than FSP'ers (a mere 20K is the goal of the entire project and AFAIK, they are nowhere near that now).
NH is still one of the fastest growing states in the entire US and the fastest in New England and the trend is Democratic.
Now lets be clear- I'm not taking sides here- they're welcome to come, maybe they will even effect tax policies, at least a little bit. But IMO, choosing a fast growing, left leaning state like NH for their revolution was a very poor strategy because the FS'ers will never be a significant portion of the voters here.

Dem? Left leaning? Is that how you see the politics of NH? Through the mindless and vacuous red versus blue, repub versus dem thing?

You couldn't be more wrong.

There are dems who are far more "conservative" than some republicans. In NH one cannot simply go by party affiliation as there are many in both parties who have a more libertarian view. And so you will see republicans voting for gay marriage and democrats supporting gun rights.

NH politics can be complicated to understand and even more so if you subscribe to the stupid "red versus blue" mindset.

[greenmartian]

Originally Posted by GHouse

because the FS'ers will never be a significant portion of the voters here.

Also, you have not thought that statement through. You assume that Free Staters must become some gigantic, monolithic voting bloc in order to be effective.

Not true at all. Passionate, committed liberty activists can have an influence far beyond their numbers at the polls. And we've already seen that happening here in New Hampshire. The FSP has done an enormous amount of work behind the scenes to defeat bad legislation and push through pro-liberty bills.

So you must learn to look beyond mere numbers. That is only one part of the equation and not a very good one for determining the effectiveness of a group in Concord where influence is measured differently.

[WannaComeHome]

There are dems who are far more "conservative" than some republicans. In NH one cannot simply go by party affiliation as there are many in both parties who have a more libertarian view. And so you will see republicans voting for gay marriage and democrats supporting gun rights.

NH politics can be complicated to understand and even more so if you subscribe to the stupid "red versus blue" mindset.

That's very true. Down here in Democrat-land many of my friends are rabid democrats.. and are also in favor of gun rights.

It's partly because of this sort of complicated cross-over that I really wish we as a nation could do away with the party concept in general and have everyone running as independents! That way, you can't just pull a lever and vote a party block, you actually have to choose who you think is the best candidate. No one would be able to pigeon-hole someone based on their party affiliation. Unfortunately, because funding issues, I know this will never happen. I can dream, though.

[BF66389]

I cannot agree more Wanna, this would be great in NH and across the rest of the country. It would essentially force voters to at least understand a candidate rather than just vote along a party.

You know those surveys with shocking results you always hear about? One I read before the election indicated that a fairly large proportion of voters were voting for "their party" without even knowing who the candidate was... That's more than scary.

[GHouse]

I realize I'm sort of crashing the libertarian party in this thread (so to speak) so I won't take the personal comments too much to heart. I just came to this board to ask a question about modular homes and got sucked into what looked like an interesting conversation. Should have known better than to discuss politics on the internet. But these are just my opinions; I'm just offering them for conversations sake. Take them or leave them. I could be completely wrong about the FSP, it happens sometimes. For instance I made a pretty big mistake that I'm really surprised no one called me on. I forgot about Judd Gregg when I said a couple of times that both our senators were Dems....guess I wasn't the only one.

But my point remains and is simply this. We are a state of over 1.3 million people Say the FSP reaches it's goal of 20k immigrants, that's a whopping 1.5 %. Also remember that we're growing at 6 % a year, that's 78000 people each year,,almost 4X the total of the FSP goal. Now you can argue about which way the majority of those immigrants lean politically but it's pretty safe to say that most of them are not Libertarians. As I said in the beginning, this project was not thought through and it would have been a better strategy to pick a state that wasn't growing so fast. IMO in NH the Libertarians will have only limited success and that probably only when they disguise themselves as small gov Republicans.

You say the FS'ers who come will be politically active, that will give them more influence than the average voter. Well perhaps, at least where there is common ground.
There are tons of people from both parties (me included) who find things to be interested about when looking at some piece of the Libertarian platform but for whom there are also some real deal breakers.
I think that's true for a lot of people here. In my experience I've found that a significant number of the people who would describe themselves as small “l” "libertarians" in NH are not actual members or even potential members of the Libertarian Party, especially when they find out ALL of the things the L's stand for. Most of them are actually independents, and many identify as moderate Democrats or moderate Republicans. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that everyone who has some libertarian leanings or agreements with some individual policies would actually register for that party and support the whole platform.

Take me for example since my politics have already been a subject of some speculation here. I consider myself an independent. Warren Rudman is my all time favorite politician from NH, I even worked on a couple of his campaigns, although I've been forced to vote for more Dems in recent years.
There are some areas where I agree with Libertarians. For instance I oppose affirmative action as counterproductive, I put a high value on civil liberties. I think the War on Drugs is a disaster. I believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. I don't want anyone telling me what I can or can't do with my own body or my own property. I don't own guns, but I believe the Constitution is pretty clear about gun ownership.

But there are real deal-breakers. I believe in some sort of social safety net. Libertarians do not. A big point of difference is access to health care. I have watched too many friends and acquaintances have their lives ruined by health care expenses and insurance company bureaucracies. I deeply believe that there needs to be some kind of government-backed health insurance reform. I'm not too fussed about the details. No reason private insurers can't exist. ...Don't bother answering this point, I know no libertarian will agree with this.

In any political alliance between groups there are potential deal breakers. For me, it is the social safety net and health care. You could make a very long list of things that the Libertarian Party and philosophy is opposed to that tens of millions of Americans seem to want and vote for, even in NH. Among them would be government laws or actions which
* fight air pollution
* fight water pollution
* regulate land usage
* protect the food supply
* protect medicines and drugs
* regulate professions through certification and licensing
* adopt a more progressive system of taxation
* protect public lands and parks
* provide assistance to the unemployed
* provide a system of Social Security
* provide a system of public education
* provide for laws for traditionally discriminated groups that have been abused by society including Women and racial minorities
* regulate labor practices in the workplace
* protect workers rights to organize and better their working conditions
* insure some element of economic fairness through things such as mimimum wage
* provide for product safety laws and regulations
* provide for economic regulation and oversight
* provide for public health programs and disease control
* provide a national highway system and travel oversight and regulation
* provide aid and assistance for college education
* provide housing assistance for the poor
* provide for gathering of information about the weather
* provide for grants for scientific research and development


In the end it all comes down to one thing and only one thing and that is numbers. So far, every time the Libertarian party goes to the people for support to elect their candidates…the people speak and they speak loudly and clearly.

That's my 2 cents, and all I have to say.
Good luck.

[sgthoskins]

Originally Posted by GHouse

In any political alliance between groups there are potential deal breakers. For me, it is the social safety net and health care. You could make a very long list of things that the Libertarian Party and philosophy is opposed to that tens of millions of Americans seem to want and vote for, even in NH. Among them would be government laws or actions which
* fight air pollution
* fight water pollution
* regulate land usage
* protect the food supply
* protect medicines and drugs
* regulate professions through certification and licensing
* adopt a more progressive system of taxation
* protect public lands and parks
* provide assistance to the unemployed
* provide a system of Social Security
* provide a system of public education
* provide for laws for traditionally discriminated groups that have been abused by society including Women and racial minorities
* regulate labor practices in the workplace
* protect workers rights to organize and better their working conditions
* insure some element of economic fairness through things such as mimimum wage
* provide for product safety laws and regulations
* provide for economic regulation and oversight
* provide for public health programs and disease control
* provide a national highway system and travel oversight and regulation
* provide aid and assistance for college education
* provide housing assistance for the poor
* provide for gathering of information about the weather
* provide for grants for scientific research and development

At least we finally have the proof you're a die hard socialist.

I guess you NEED the .gov to do a lot for YOU. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they read your ideas on what the .gov SHOULD do.

[rscalzo]

Murphy's in Manchester

So I can watch Ridley try and get another photo op? No thanks. I've seen the guys walking around with the gun showing. Hope they get a kick out of it but it does nothing to promote safety. I'm not one for the "Hey look at me, I got a gun" crowd.

Most are very nice and i have no problem with them. some moved in and have begun trying to tell us how to live. No thanks. i don't need their help.