Slashdot Mirror
Free State Project Reaches Goal of 20,000 Signups (freestateproject.org)
Okian Warrior writes: As a followup to our recent story, at 11AM Tuesday, Free State Project president Carla Gericke announced the FSP had reached its goal of recruiting 20,000 participants. The 20,000 mark is significant, because it 'triggers the move' – the mass migration of the Free State Project participants who have all agreed to move to New Hampshire within the next five years. So far, almost 2,000 have already relocated to the state.
Perhaps someday we will all agree to live and let live [...]
So you are against abortion? Or for it? Not sure of what you mean because empty statement like this, while they make you feel good, do not communicate anything of value to your audience.
Libertarians will never come to agreement as to whether not there is a duty to ensure that ALL people are equally free. This of course allows for Authoritarians to gain and keep power simply by promising to enforce a Conservative Libertarian agenda on Social Libertarians or a Social Libertarian agenda on Conservative Libertarians. Perhaps someday we will all agree to live and let live, but I fear that day is a long, long way off.
Libertarians are naive in the extreme (like the bunch that invested in the "Galts Gulch" in Argentina a few years back). On the up side, there's a business opportunity in New Hampshire with the best kind of clients happening pretty soon. Anyone with a silver tongue and no qualms about ripping people off should be rubbing their hands with glee at the moment.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
$165,000.00 for a 972 sqft mobile home on 1.08 acres? Christ, I could buy over 200 acres for less than that around here, and still have plenty left over to build a house.
Free state my ass. More like rip you off on cost of living state.
The trouble with cheap land is that it's a long way from where you want to be.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
That is an Authoritarian viewpoint.
No. The Authoritarian viewpoint would be that stupid people must be shot hit the head.
if the state incubated the fetus
That's not very Libertarian. In fact, it's downright Brave New World.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Don't worry, you've already got them on the left. They're called progressives and SJW's.
Om, nomnomnom...
Actually it's not, because there would still be choice. The important thing here is that people aren't "forced" to be incubators and subjugated to a lifetime of servitude.
Excepting cases of rape and incest, you chose to have sex, deal with it...
You not wanting to carry the child doesn't give you the right to kill it...
Although they do have a front row seat for watching this train wreck...
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Sex is a drive imposed on humans by nature, the same as most other animals. Just because you can't get any doesn't mean you should impose lifetime penalties upon others. You do understand that by forcing women to carry a fetuses that they did not wish upon themselves is akin to forcing them into slavery, right?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
It's pretty amazing how almost everybody who is anti-abortion is also anti-welfare and anti-public-school and almost always pro-death-penalty. They will force a life to come into this world, but they won't bat an eye if that child and her mother starve to death a week later (nor will they move an inch to pay the not insignificant medical costs involved in giving the birth they forced her to give).
And if that child growing up in hardship ever does something wrong, they will be quite happy to electrocute and adult instead.
Whatever the hell the anti-abortion crowd is they sure as fuck are NOT "pro-life" - they are, at best, "pro-birth".
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Would you argue that if a man decides he doesn't want to pay for a child he helped conceive he shouldn't be forced to? This is why it isn't a simple question. If it is ok to absolve the woman involved of all responsibility then it follows that it must also be ok to absolve the man as well.
...a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889...
That's not a good thing - it means that representatives are exclusively funded through independent wealth, this may seem like a good idea, but the practical upshot is that working class and to a certain extend middle class can't participate.
Excepting cases of rape and incest, you chose to have sex, deal with it.
What if the partner was lying about contraception?
What if somebody wasn't educated on the consequences of sex?
What if the mother was brought up in an enslavement society that taught her from early childhood that women should to as they are told and spread their legs when told to? (Basically all societies on this planet until a few decades ago)
What if somebody was emotionally coned into getting a child and the abandoned by those just as responsible? (Mostly men abandoning women, except in societies that ensure guys don't chicken out and have more-or-less equal rights)
What if somebody is using a child as an excuse for a free ride and as a vector for irresponsible behaviour?
Aside from that, I'd like to hear from you if it's better to keep the child and have it born into misery and/or abadoned into foster care or rather ensure that someone who doesn't want to have a child or technically can't handle it can abort (up to a medical resonable point that is).
Bottom line: Your reasoning looks so neat and simple, but it has holes so big as to drive a mac truck through them. Ergo: Wrong. You should reconsider your maximes on this.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
So it is settles then. You are an authoritarian who wants to impose his opinions on those who disagree with you and force women into a a score of years of servitude to satisfy your agenda.
Well, we currently do it for men. Do you have any good arguments for why forcing men into years of servitude is okay but forcing women into years of servitude is not? If it is okay to force $GENDER into servitude for years, why does it stop being okay when the gender changes?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
What are we supposed to think when the group explicitly replaces "the pursuit of happiness" with "property"?
From their site:
Statement of Intent: "I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the State of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of individualsâ(TM) rights to life, liberty, and property."
Pretty much sums up this group of people up. I think we all know a monpolistic, anti-social, predatory-capitalism-loving, big-bank-hugging, Koch-worshipping, Grover Norquist-loving, environment-trashing, indentured-servitude (hey, it's a contract btween consenting adults) pushing libertarian sociopath when we see one ...or 20,000
And someone who says libertarians (you know, the small government people) are fascists.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
There are many small towns in New Hampshire, and each town has perhaps a dozen boards and committees with unpaid positions some of which are elective. It takes a population of about 2000 before there are dependably enough people running for office to fill all the offices. Some of these boards meet evenings, so there's no need to leave your job. Some of them require about 5 hours a month of effort. If you run for office, you stand a good chance of being elected. If some board isn't fully staffed, often you can be accepted to fill the vacancy immediately.
What are your efforts likely to net you? Responsibility for maintaining a cemetery, planning recreational events, helping pass judgement on zoning exceptions are examples of three unpaid jobs. Members of the Planning Board are responsible for writing the town's Master Plan, a document with no legal authority.
More powerful elective jobs are town selectmen and school board members -- I don't know offhand if these positions pay anything, but they involve more responsibility and more time. In my town, selectmen meet once a week for a couple of hours in the evening, and spend a substantial amount of other time doing things like assembling the town budget. Sometimes more than one person runs for an open Select Board position. Even if you're not on the Select Board, meetings are small and if you want to affect things, attend meetings and press your plan.
In small towns many things are voted on, like whether to allocate $20,000 to a reserve fund to replace the fire department tanker when it rusts out in a few years, or whether to give $200 to a local charity.
Schools account for about 2/3 of money paid in property taxes. If you want to lower taxes, figure out how to cut down $10,000/yr/student.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate