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.
What's in New Hampshire?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I propose an increase in taxation to support a Libertarian Emigration Fund.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Less than $1k per acre? Are there people on the same state... er... continent?
$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.
I was expecting to read New Hampshire had seceded from the other 49 but obviously "Free State" means something different in American English.
...their views on everyone they can. What else would you expect authoritarian dictators to do?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
That, and the right of revolt is right in the state constitution...
"Live Free or Die" is the motto for a reason...
Apparently freedom means not having to make your kids wear seatbelts but you still have to show photo ID to go on a long bus trip.
Not to mention the scrotum grabbing if you fly.
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."
The trouble with cheap land is that it's a long way from where you want to be.
Unless where you want to be is away from everybody, which is exactly where I want to be if I could get decent internet
--- Keep the choice with the user..
$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.
Sounds like it's where he wants to be, though.
You could always go and dig the trench to lay fiber from your home to whatever internet node you want to be connected to.
You're overstating. Let's look at the 2014 governor's race -- chosen because turnout is lower then a presidential election, thereby magnifying the impact of the Free State Project on voting.
Democratic Maggie Hassan, the incumbent, won 254,666 votes (52.49%) Republican Walt Havenstein, the challenger, won 229,610 votes (47.32%) Other/blank won 907 votes (0.1%)
New Hampshire has 1.327 million people (2014), 20.1% of which are under 18 (2014). That leaves 1.06 million adults. Not all are eligible, data is tough to put together, let's call it an even 1 million. Now, lets replace 20,000 adults at random with the Free Staters. 48.4% didn't vote, 25.5% voted for the Dem incumbent, 23.0% voted for the GOP challenger. 0.1% voted for another candidate or blanked it. Net change: Hassan loses 5100 voters, Havenstein loses 4592 voters, "other" loses 18 voters, and "free state" gains 20000. Even if all 20,000 free staters voted for the losing candidate (Havenstein), their candidate would still only get 49.5% to Hassan's 50.4%.
Is it possible that, if all 20,000 actually move to New Hampshire and all actually vote in a local election that they'll win some state house seats? You bet. No question. Thing is, the NH state house is so remarkably unstable that it would amount to just a bit more noise (% Dems in NH House of Rep at the end of the last four sessions (today is "end" for the purpose of this study): 55.4%, 26.4%, 55.2%, 40.1%.
Is it possible that their mere presence will result in Republican candidates leaning more libertarian? Sure, but within the state they're still only 4 percent of the electorate, and dispersed throughout the state. Certainly not enough to have a systematic effect on the NH GOP. But what if they all go Libertarian or some other third party candidate? Have at it, but good luck actually winning any representation in a First Past the Post system.
New Hampshire already does have a libertarian streak, as loads of Massholes emigrate to NH to escape taxes but retain their liberal social values. Even if all 20k Free Staters show up (and come on, not a chance), it would be a small nudge to NH politics, at best.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
This isn't a gun article, it's a Libertarian article.
It's certainly news for nerds (though I doubt it matters).
This is a long standing online push, going back to just a few years after the web started, and seeing it click over to its goal number is certainly interesting. Libertarians generally have little political relevance unless they are extraordinarily rich, and this is entirely due to their reasonably small numbers. Left leaning Libertarians can often be persuaded to vote for Democrats, who trash some of their freedoms but are generally thought of as "good enough", and the more common right leaning Libertarian often votes for a Republican for similar reasons. This reduces their relevance even more.
So putting a few in a small place might actually have interesting effects. Certainly this experiment must be deliberate, and must be voluntary.
I've thought this has been interesting since proposed.
And there's about three end games: the first is that they move there and tick everyone off because they aren't just Libertarians, they are the sort that will move to a state for their beliefs, making them almost assuredly meddlesome- we'll get some lulz stories. The second is that they matter and convert people, in which case New Hampshire doesn't just become a beacon for liberty, it actually becomes a social experiment- many libertarians sound like utopians, so what happens if they actually get to make some policies you don't see elsewhere? Much like cannabis in Colorado, it could challenge the notion of "if you do X then Y will happen, so we'd better ban X in 50 states". That would be a huge boon, and New Hampshire would either get the benefits first, or pay the consequences first.
The third and final one is probably the most likely- they don't make much of a difference. They get some silly law passed about how internet distributors work, and they all have a wall of guns in their homes, but the state just doesn't change much. This is the least amusing, beneficial, or detrimental, and it would tell us what many secretly suspect- if you want to change politics at all, you need to go to a new place or carve up on an old one, meaning either exploration or conquest. There's a big barrier to exploration, and libertarians are opposed to conquest, so that would probably be bad news for ANY group seeking peaceful change of laws by engineered move.
But regardless, we should get some awesome headlines soon!
January: The Free State based on libertarian fundamentals is founded.
February: The first Home Owners' Associations are formed.
and dispersed throughout the state.
The thing is, they havent "dispersed" throughout the State .. the ones that have moved there already are mainly centered around Keene. Several dozen of them have already been elected to the State legislature. They took 12 State House seats in 2010 alone.
You guys think whats going on there is just something that might happen in the future and probably wont work if it does, but its already happening and it is already demonstrably working.
The plan was so sound that even a partial execution of it has already gotten results.
"His name was James Damore."
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
The trouble with cheap land is that it's a long way from where you want to be.
Exactly. In the upper 80%+ of the state of New Hampshire, things are a LOT cheaper (with a few notable exceptions of touristy towns in the middle of the state). If you're living in someplace like Nashua, you're essentially paying to live in a Boston suburb.
While getting 20,000 to sign to commit is a big thing by itself, a credit needs to be given where credit is due:
A credit for committing to pack your stuff and to move to the sparsely populated cold state. That is something.
While 20,000 voters will not change the elections in a state where 700K to 900K people vote, few things need to be taken to the account:
- FSP is not a political organization and it will not endorse any of the candidates. However it has been my observation that most of the free staters are libertarian leaning or would vote for Bernie Sanders.
- 20,000 is not the end. It is meant to be a beginning. A judgmentally selected, trigger point and future inflows will be encouraged.
- Local politics: Education of the jurors. Challenging unnecessary and outdated laws is the current
- Free staters are disproportionately more active in politics. Not only they vote, but, also, get elected and their share is much larger than general population.
Yeah, that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but for $160,000.00 I could get way more than a tad over an acre and build nice a house.
$160k sounds like a pretty low price for builting a house. In 2013 the average construction costs for a new home in the USA seemed to be just shy of $250k
http://eyeonhousing.org/2014/0...
It looks like materials cost about half of this ($146k) according to http://www.fixr.com/costs/buil... so even if you did everything yourself, building a typical house for $160k seems like a bargain.
I vaguely remember signing up when I was 19. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but now that I'm almost 32, have a job, a wife (who has her own job), a child, a dog, two mortgages (we live in one and have a renter in the other), etc., there is pretty much no damned way I'm picking up and moving because of some crap I said on the internet while in college, probably drunk and definitely on anti-depressants. Frankly, I expect there are others just like that.
Additionally, I do believe I had stopped paying for a domain at some point and then lost my password to the website, causing me to re-register. Therefor, they're down at least two "members" just with me, "sorry" to say.
And now we'll see that 'internet activism' will result in - my guess - about five people out of those 20,000 ACTUALLY MOVING.
Five may be optimistic. Well...not if four already live in NH...
-Styopa
And just picture the guy in prison that has to stamp out the license plates with the Live Free Or Die on them all day long.
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
Thank God I don't live in New Hampshire. I'd be pissed if a bunch of out of state yahoos whose political views are in an extreme minority in this country all moved to my state in an attempt to change the political spectrum to what they think is right for everyone.
Well guess what libertarians. Your political views are in the minority for a reason, most people want government to do more then the minimalist government you want. That's literally why this project exists to begin with!
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
nobody said "live free" meant "live free without consequences"...
$160k sounds like a pretty low price for builting a house. In 2013 the average construction costs for a new home in the USA seemed to be just shy of $250k
http://eyeonhousing.org/2014/0...
It looks like materials cost about half of this ($146k) according to http://www.fixr.com/costs/buil... so even if you did everything yourself, building a typical house for $160k seems like a bargain.
Good god. I don't need a 2500 sqft mansion, and $125 per is including total contracted out. I'd do most of the work myself so I can get a house better than contractor grade for at least half that. Really the only thing I'd need to contract out would be the foundation and brickwork if I wanted brick.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
You could always go and dig the trench to lay fiber from your home to whatever internet node you want to be connected to.
That's assuming I could get the right of way, and could afford the fiber.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
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
Would it make sense to buy it now, and then flip it in a year or two?
www.wavefront-av.com
Twelve seats out of 400+. However, they are also sitting on school boards, and the like, making more of a "difference" at the local, not state level. Unfortunately, most of the people who already live there think most of these guys are fucking idiots for doing shit like dropping their pistols on the floor (improperly securing them in their holsters) in the state House, and have basically Ted Cruz'd themselves with the conservatives already in the state. They picked New Hampshire because they liked, generally, what they saw, and are now determined to turn it into hell.
Source: I've met a lot of ex-new hampshire residents and drove through Keane a week or so before their stupid pumpkin riots.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Depending on the land I have seen lots in northern Minnesota for as little as $250/acre although that was about 3 years ago.
Time to offend someone
and they're going to leave everyone alone!
And someone who says libertarians (you know, the small government people) are fascists.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Yes, i see how a desire for a relatively week and small government is readily confused with a desire for a very powerful centralized government that controls most aspects of life.
"Competitors, who are signing up to move to "Out Of Control Socialist Free Other Peoples' Money State" agree, upon achieving critical mass, to start moving to California 20 years ago."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Or frankly anyone who confuses Libertarianism with Fascism...they are very strongly opposed viewpoints.
I am not sure the AC understands what a Libertarian is.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I do not know if they still do but they did make Maine's license plates in the NH prisons. Those say, "Vacationland."
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
How does 20,000 more nutjobs moving to New Hampshire make New Hampshire any more free? Granted, they're probably one of the more libertarian states to begin with, as compared to, say, California.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Yes and yes.
However, you wouldn't want to live there. No sir. It's cold, desolate, and the people have firearms. There are no jobs, no economy, and no hope. Nope. You don't want to live there.
Err... My home is in NW Maine and I've bought land at much lower prices than that. I've bought significant chunks of land, actually. You can use it, I don't mind. Just clean up after yourself. No, you can't build on it but you can camp on it if you want. I just ask that ATVs and trucks stay on the trails as much as possible and that you pick up after yourself and that you don't start a fire you can't control. You can hunt, fish, pick wild berries, and even trap if you know how.
But no, no... You don't want to move there. You can get natural regrowth old paper mill property (was harvested a long time ago) and even get replant for dirt cheap. As in, yeah, you can get it auction for $200 an acre. Now, you're not going to get that price if you're buying 10 acres. No, you need to buy anywhere from 100 to 250 for that sort of price.
So, yes and yes. I've no idea where they live but you can buy land for under $1000/acre. You just don't want to. It's a terrible place and you wouldn't like it there. If you don't believe me, research black flies, mosquitoes, deer flies, moose flies, ticks, snow, ice, freezing temperatures, mud season, and frost heave season. Nope... Don't ever move there.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
$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.
Sounds like it's where he wants to be, though.
Not entirely. He's troubled by the lack of internet.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Their EuqalLogic and Compellent lines are developed and supported out of Nashua. Might move around now that they own EMC but for now, it is there.
More like instead of a powerful government, a powerful ruling class which they fantasize will be them. Unluckily history has shown that there is always a power hungry asshole ready to step into any power vacuum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Some Libertarians seem to just want to replace government tyranny with corporate tyranny or at least tyranny of the rich (them). The famous quote is something like "wanting just enough government to protect them from their slaves"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
These are activists. I believe the estimate for the current number of activists in the state is on the order of 2,000, soi if 20k libertarians show up, get jobs, and start activisting that's a BFD. They're joining the big parties, getting appointed to boards, filling phone banks etc. Which means that a) the actual candidates owe them shit, and b) if those guys screw up most of the people who immediately come to mind as replacements are gonna be Free Staters.
So it will be a slow process, on the order of a decade, but if even 5k of them make the trip (and 2k already have), New Hampshire politics will completely change.
Redneck implies undereducated. In actuality, there is a wide and deep body of serious fundamental libertarian intellectual work than far exceeds equivalent conservative work in quantity and quality, and far exceeds leftist work in quality. Libertarians tend to be more familiar with such literature than their counterparts who lean in other political directions, in large part because it takes a lot of learning and thinking to challenge conventional misunderstanding.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If you say something about my freedom stopping at his nose, then I remind you that the baby's right to live stops at the aborter's saline injection, scraping blade, etc.
libertarians might agree that abortion should be illegal, and might not. I'll explain why:
The core of libertarian philosophy: force and fraud are not acceptable, but as long as people are free to choose, the state shouldn't intervene.
Thus a libertarian would not be in favor of the state forbidding drugs like alcohol or tobacco or marijuana. If a person chooses to use such drugs it is his/her choice.
But a libertarian would agree that murder should be illegal.
So it comes down to: is an abortion murder?
libertarians who believe that life begins at conception, and even a one-week-old embryo counts as a person, would believe that abortion is murder, and thus should be illegal.
libertarians who believe that an embryo isn't a person yet would believe that abortion should be the choice of the mother.
The question of whether an embryo is a person is not one that is decided by libertarian philosophy, and thus two people who are libertarians might have opposite opinions.
All libertarians would agree that the state should not be using tax money to fund abortions. Some libertarians think the state should be very small, and others (the "anarcho-capitalists") want no state at all; none would consider funding abortions to be a legitimate function for the state.
P.S. I read an essay by Carl Sagan where he suggested that before brain activity starts up, a fetus is not a person, but after the brain is functioning it should be considered an unborn person. IIRC he said that is about the third trimester. (Note, I did a Google search and found one web page saying brain activity starts around 25 weeks, which would be early third trimester.)
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
(Carl Sagan should have stuck to astronomy.)
I'm in the zygote camp of personhood, since it's when your own unique DNA starts the self-sustaining processes which is "life".
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I have a simple metric for seeing if a political idea has merit. I look around the world and find places where it is being used and see how it is working out. By that metric, the USA's government is doing fairly well, but someone else does most individual tasks better somewhere else. Nobody is a lot better, which is why the USA is a good place to live. I can't find any real Libertarian counties or states, much less successful ones. If the "Free State" project succeeds, they may prove something. Based on the lack of success with these ideas elsewhere, it is likely to prove that this is a bad idea. That could be worthwhile as long as not too many people get hurt in the meantime and people remember the lessons learned. Of course, avid fans tend to ignore failures and attribute it to a lack of purity and other problems, not a failure of the core ideas to work in a real human society.
Some Libertarians seem to just want to replace government tyranny with corporate tyranny or at least tyranny of the rich (them). The famous quote is something like "wanting just enough government to protect them from their slaves"
Yes, I too am deeply concerned about these imaginary libertarians and their imaginary corporate tyranny agenda. My view on this is first, show that it's a problem worth of that level of concern, then we have something to talk about. Currently, I see it as an overblown problem like drugs or terrorism meant more to scare the public into approving certain shifty activities. There's something of an issue there, but it's not serious enough to justify the hype.
You're making awfully definite statements about matters of opinion, guy. The libertarian stuff I've seen can be interesting, but it appears to me that it can deviate off into irrelevancies quite easily, and it suffers from the same proofs by blatant assertion that you'll find in any political literature.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
More like instead of a powerful government, a powerful ruling class which they fantasize will be them. Unluckily history has shown that there is always a power hungry asshole ready to step into any power vacuum.
Government is not the only source of power. If the public steps up, then there isn't such a vacuum for someone to occupy.
With this definition, even a zygote is clearly not brain-dead. The prognosis is very positive - it will grow an immature, but fully functional brain within a few months.
I first heard about the Free State Project from a slashdot story in October 2003, when they announced that New Hampshire was the target state. At the time I was on a 1-year work contract in Australia, and all I knew was that when I returned to the USA, I did not want to return to the high taxes, high population density and (comparatively) bad air quality of the Bay Area. As a libertarian myself, it was a no-brainer, especially after I read the "101 Reasons to choose New Hampshire" document (which has subsequently been turned into a video documentary). So I went back to California just long enough to make arrangements. I moved to NH in June 2005, making me mover #107.
In the time I have been here, some 1,900 other "early movers" have also come. We have gone from electing a few Free-Staters to local city councils and planning boards, to our first State Representative, to now having some two dozen Free-Stater State Reps, and having pulled many of the existing State Reps and Senators (especially the Republican ones) in a much more libertarian direction. I will never forget the ex-Marine State Rep who in 2006 told me he would "never, ever in his life" allow "legal dope", to that same Rep now voting for full marijuana legalization every single time it comes up. We were the first state to pass same-sex marriage via a legislative process (not popular referendum). We passed medical marijuana. We have no adult seat belt law, no helmet law, open carry and shall-issue concealed carry (and are likely to pass constitutional carry next session). We have eliminated all state knife laws, absolutely rejected Real-ID ("and any de-facto national identity system that may follow therefrom"), forbidden the State to use automated license plate scanners, and passed a law affirming a defendant's right to explain Nullification to the jury.
We don't need all 20,000 to show up. Another 4-5K people, if they do the same things as the first 2K, and NH will bear very little resemblance to the police-states/welfare-states of the rest of the USA... and much more resemblance to the society described in the New Hampshire Constitution, which is summed up well by Article 10:
Part of the Second American Revolution!
New Hampshire has already been invaded by the North Korea to the south of it.
This is largely due to the Democrats that have to a large extent taken over the state in the last 15 years. NH used to have emergency funds, stockpiles on money to use in disasters. It took only 2 years of a Democrat governor, in the absence of any emergency, to zero out those funds. The spending has continued unchecked.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
One of the most successful things that Free-Staters and local NH libertarians have done is to produce the Gold Standard a voting guide that is handed out every week to every member of the NH House and Senate, before floor votes. To produce the doc, a small army of volunteers reads and grades all the incoming legislation according to a standardized scale. The most important pro- or anti-liberty legislation is debated on a private list, and once we have solid bullet-points to clarify our position, we produce the doc. We then grade the legislators on their votes, and produce an annual legislative report card. We are the only group, other than the (R) and (D) parties, to produce a consistent voting recommendation for years on end. At first lots of legislators ignored us. Then we started targeting the lowest-ranked legislators in elections, and got some of the worst eliminated; and donated money to the best rated. Now some hate us, but all respect us.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
The figure of 20,000 was carefully calculated to be the minimum needed to have a reasonable chance of succeeding at changing the political atmosphere. Would you want to move if there was little chance of achieving your goals, that moving would gain you nothing?
Think of it like not buying a house until you have enough for a down payment.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Electricity in NH: private providers. Same for telephone, partially for internet. Outside of cities and the dense portions of some towns, water and sewage are privately owned wells, tanks, and leach fields.
Here in America we are also taxed for things that make life worse: "welfare", hundreds of government agencies that interfere with innocent activities, theft of private property. The low level of taxation that would be required for services that can only be properly provided by government would be far less objectionable to most people, and would encourage people to work more to achieve their own goals.
Governments do things such as putting up expensive statues of foul people like Nathan Bedford Forrest and Woodrow Wilson. Those are some of the "great things we can do together when we pool our resources." I'd far rather have my portion of that money to put up a small fountain at my own house.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You've just admitted you lied. Why should I believe anything else you wrote?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I had to pay for the CO and new lines to be put in. My home is 24 miles out of the village and about 65 out of a real town. It was a bit pricey but not bad. I paid about $30k for the line and CO. They did the labor for free or at a reduced price. The guy further up threw in another $1k to go the extra mile. The ones past him don't want the 'net. I get 14-15 down and 1.5 up. That's more than enough for me though I'd like to play with the numbers a little bit and change to 10/5.
But, if you have a minute, I'll share a bit of my story with you. You might find it interesting and be able to pick and pull out the parts that you like and work towards those ends. It'll be a bit long but you can skip, skim, or read as you wish. No reply is needed, it does me well to write and there might be something in there for you or for another reader. It not only can happen, it has happened.
Depending on where you live, I retired to Maine, going with copper may get you a whole slew of rights and protections that you don't get with cable, fiber, satellite, or WISP. I actually priced out cable and I'd have had to have them run more wire (the village has cable) but they'd have done it - it was a similar price, as I recall. But, with all those other solutions, I'm dependent on the ISP. With the mighty copper, I've got the PUC and the rights associated with a phone line.
The primary example that I like to use for those rights? Well... I can use an ISP in Hong Kong if I want and they're willing to service the area. The telephone company can not disallow access to the lines. They must provide them, at cost pretty much, to anybody looking to lease them and provide service on them. (If you think back, remember when we suddenly could get cheap long distance from a whole bunch of customers? Same law.) I can, literally, pick any ISP that wants to serve me. They don't even have to maintain or own the lines.
I have three different, disparate, lines. One is in my home, one is in my garage, the other is in the house that was on the property when i bought it. (I always feel a little self-conscious when I say "guest house" because, while it is a guest house - that's a whole lot more pretentious than it really is. I have not always had a few dollars and only have those few dollars because I sold my business 8 years ago.) Now, all three of those lines can have a different ISP if I want. The telephone provider is obligated to maintain the line up until it enters my house. Maine's got some neat protections for telephones and I'm really grateful for it.
So, I went with DSL as my method. I've stated a number of times, and I repeat, that I'm very happy with that choice - for me. I'm not home now but I'll be back in the spring. A thread just popped up about DSL so I'll probably type more in there. I priced an ISDN and that was slower and more costly - it also, for some reason, is actually excluded from some of the protections that a telephone has (as I understand it - I'm neither an expert not a lawyer).
If you don't need fiber (which was not a realistic option for me) then DSL could be an option in this fantasy you're constructing? I also posted a reply to one of the people who replied to you. If you buy in quantity, you can get land cheaper than the price you listed in my area. I buy large chunks at auctions - so long as they connect. I've arranged to buy another good chunk - with an active farm. The land is kept open, public access not only allowed but invited, and the farm will continue to work. My housekeeper and her husband own the farm but they're pretty old. They're actually still down here with me in Florida but are probably going to go home soon. They have a young couple that lives there help them out and they're running the farm (it's a small affair) and they'll continue to run the farm.
I'm paying the couple and taking ownership now but they'll be able to use it until they decide to move or pass away. It's all good. The wife in the new couple will be my new housekeeper but I'll continue to pay this one in perp
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Unrelated: the link in your sig is broken (404).
Parts of the N, W, and NW can be a bit pricey as well. Up on the White Mountains, all through the valley, and even out at the end of the Kancamagus Hwy are a bit pricey. Conway, N. Conway, Jefferson, can be pricey. Laconia, but you sort of mentioned that area - central/tourist. Gilford's got some nice property. I forget the name of the town, I went and saw and outdoor show (it was Meat Loaf) in an area that looked like it had some decent (and likely expensive) properties. I want to say the name was Meadowbrook but I think that might be in/around Gilford. Down near the coast is probably a bit expensive? I imagine *some* of the property in Plymouth, Exeter, and Keene might be good and high.
Then, my mother was friends with the daughter of the guy who owned the Castle in the Clouds (I think that's the name) and if you head up the road that's on - I can only speculate that that's a bit pricey. I've actually priced some land up in NW NH. It wasn't all that bad, I guess. I didn't end up buying it. Coming from Maine into the White Mountains on Rt. 2, it's on the right and not far past the rest area. There was 60+ acres for sale in between the rest area and the town (whose name I have forgotten and am too lazy to Google) and I thought about picking it up as an investment. It was a bit pricey but not egregiously so. I'd say that it was pricier than it needed to be when the downturn and property value disruptions were not long before it. I was looking at that chunk in 2010 or so.
I had a few ideas and had thought about developing it. However, I was still drinking then and was still a bit giddy from the sale of my company so it never happened. I was mostly thinking that I was retired and it was damned stupid to look for something to interrupt that retirement. A part of me still agrees with that sentiment. I was thinking a park, sandwich shop, craft store (curated crafts like woodworking or other local NH crafts, all curated and juried like a semi-permanent craft show), ties with some local businesses (maybe making that ice cream shop, which is awesome, more visible) and probably foliage runs, scenery runs in the winter, and things like that. It never got past me going down and looking at the property. It's probably for the best.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
So self-awareness, and brain in general, is not required to be a person?
Why aren't animals persons, then, and why don't they get all the same rights that a person should? Just because they have a wrong DNA? Does it also apply to humans with "the wrong DNA" (e.g. not sufficiently white)?
So self-awareness, and brain in general, is not required to be a person?
Excellent question!
Answer, part #1: Because the the human brain develops naturally from that zygote.
Answer, part #2: Babies with severe microcephaly have no self-awareness, but are still humans.
why don't they get all the same rights that a person should?
Just because they have a wrong DNA?
Because their DNA is not human. Even when it functions properly, it doesn't produce the panoply of features required for humanness.
Does it also apply to humans with "the wrong DNA" (e.g. not sufficiently white)?
Only for people without a competent understanding of biology.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Answer, part #1: Because the the human brain develops naturally from that zygote.
Sure, but why start with zygote? Why not the egg? Why not before? Any point in this chain is pretty arbitrary, and even if you pick one (like you did with "has its own DNA"), it's not clear what it has to do with personhood.
Answer, part #2: Babies with severe microcephaly have no self-awareness, but are still humans.
Sure. And it's a valid question to ask whether they should have the same rights as a self-aware human being. Ditto for braindead people.
Because their DNA is not human.
But then you're not basing your definition of rights on whether someone is a person or not. You're basing it on whether they're human or not (or rather - because there isn't really a hard delimiter between species in general - on whether someone is "sufficiently human"). I don't see why this is, in principle, any better than denying on a scattering of other genetic markers that correspond to dark skin etc.
Biology is irrelevant here, because it does not really concern itself with issues such as "personhood" and "natural rights".
Why not the egg? Why not before?
Anyone intelligent enough to post on /. is intelligent enough to know that half the DNA isn't enough. (It's also why the Roman Catholic "every sperm is sacred" doctrine is so silly.)
And it's a valid question to ask whether they should have the same rights as a self-aware human being.
Quoting "The Interpersonal World of the Infant", 1985, p. 165: Prior to the age of eighteen months, infants do not seem to know that what they are seeing in a mirror is their own reflection. After eighteen months, they do.
Thus, if self-awareness is the measure of humanity/personhood, it's just as ok to "put down" an eighteen month old human as it is to kill an unwanted dog.
you're not basing your definition of rights on whether someone is a person or not. You're basing it on whether they're human or not
I fail to see the difference between the two. The Wikipedia article just demonstrates a bunch of philosophical BS.
don't see why this is, in principle, any better than denying on a scattering of other genetic markers that correspond to dark skin etc.
Where did I indicate such a thing???
Biology is irrelevant here
It is relevant, because with it you boil the argument down to objective facts instead of philosophical and socio-political arguments.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Anyone intelligent enough to post on /. is intelligent enough to know that half the DNA isn't enough.
Enough for what? To eventually grow a human, sure. But to be a person? I don't know.
Thus, if self-awareness is the measure of humanity/personhood, it's just as ok to "put down" an eighteen month old human as it is to kill an unwanted dog.
You're correct - i.e. logically speaking, either both are okay, or neither is okay.
Or, possibly, the definition of "person" is more extensive than self-awareness. But I still don't see why it should have anything to do with DNA makeup.
I fail to see the difference between the two.
It's because the definition of "person" is not strict, and for most people who haven't given it consideration, it's basically "I know it when I see it". However, surely you can imagine a hypothetical non-human person, even under whatever subjective definition you subscribe to? E.g. suppose we do determine that dolphins are "intelligent enough", after all, and devise means to communicate with them with a full-fledged language - would that not make them persons?
"Human", on the other hand, is defined entirely in strict biological terms. It's still not a strict definition if you consider corner cases (which extinct hominids were human and which weren't, for example? and at which point the result of our future evolution can no longer be called "human" and becomes a different species?), but for practical purposes, you can just do a DNA test.
Where did I indicate such a thing???
You indicated that natural rights belong to humans, and humans are defined by DNA. I don't see why such differentiation by DNA is fundamentally different from differentiating within homo sapiens sapiens by DNA; the only difference is degree. Just as you can determine the difference between humans and chimps by comparing their genes, so you can determine the difference between different human populations by looking at some genetic markers or others (and yes, there are some that correlate pretty well with black skin, for example).
And don't pretend like the fact that one case straddles species boundary and the other one doesn't makes a huge difference - "species" themselves are a rather arbitrary human construct stemming from our desire to neatly label and categorize everything, but nature doesn't really care about such things. If you want to talk about objective facts, you'll have to show a difference in quality rather than quantity of differences (or demonstrate that some quantity is a threshold meaningful for some reason other than "because I said so").
It is relevant, because with it you boil the argument down to objective facts instead of philosophical and socio-political arguments.
You can't boil the argument down without agreeing on what the argument is about. This particular one is whether personhood or humanity is the defining factor for possessing natural rights, including right to life. Yes, if you arbitrarily resolve this question in favor of humanity, then you can boil it down to objective facts - DNA etc. But that first decision is arbitrary, and not everyone agrees to it.
surely you can imagine a hypothetical non-human person, even under whatever subjective definition you subscribe to?
No, I can't.
suppose we do determine that dolphins are "intelligent enough" ... would that not make them persons?
No. It would make them sentient dolphins, not "non-human people".
you'll have to show a difference in quality rather than quantity of differences
Easy peasy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project
The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. ... There are nine other major chromosomal differences between chimpanzees and humans: chromosome segment inversions on human chromosomes 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html
we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6âmillion years. The chimpanzee MSY contains twice as many massive palindromes as the human MSY, yet it has lost large fractions of the MSY protein-coding genes and gene families present in the last common ancestor.
You can't boil the argument down without agreeing on what the argument is about.
That's for sure... :)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
No. It would make them sentient dolphins, not "non-human people".
Whatever you want to call them - do you think that they would not be entitled to, at the minimum, a right to life to the same degree as humans (i.e. killing them should be treated as murder)?
If so, then what determines who has that right and who doesn't? Sentience? But zygotes aren't sentient.
Easy peasy!
23 chromosomes is a normal number for humans, but not all humans have 23 chromosomes - Down syndrome, XYY males and XXX females etc.
Ultimately, all this is just accumulated mutations and selection of them over the course of that 6 million years of divergence. By itself, that's still a quantitative difference, not qualitative - i.e. we know that things are different, sure, but they're also different between humans on genetic level. The question is, what exactly about those missing or extra chromosomes and DNA difference is responsible for having or not having natural rights? If you could incrementally edit a chimp's genome to make it human, at which point during the process is it "human enough"?
The FSP contributed over $30 millions to NH over the years since it's creation. People are bringing their business with them or investing to create new ones. There is also a big investement in RE by members of the community.
Whatever you want to call them - do you think that they would not be entitled to, at the minimum, a right to life to the same degree as humans (i.e. killing them should be treated as murder)?
Only if they can fight for them. "Our Creator" didn't endow man with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: men fought other men for those rights.
"Wait!!", you say. "Babies and Down's Syndrome people, and people in iron lungs can't fight. They must not be human, either!!" To that I reply, "They came from humans, so must be humans."
but not all humans have 23 chromosomes
You ignored the other differences.
Down syndrome
Interestingly -- and off topic -- males with DS have never been known to reproduce, and only 1/6 to 1/3 of DS females are fertile.
Ultimately, all this is just accumulated mutations and selection of them over the course of that 6 million years of divergence.
Why stop at six million? Why not regress back to 90 Mya and the first placental mammals? Or even further to the probainognathians, cynodonts, synapsids, amniotes, chordata, animalia, eukaryotes, bacteria, all the way back to the Last Universal Ancestor? Call everything human.
If you could incrementally edit a chimp's genome to make it human, at which point during the process is it "human enough"?
I don't know that.
But we do know that if it comes from the joining of male & female DNA, then it's human. And that's Good Enough.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Very intersting obviously I've been schooled, so thank you fellow Slashdotters.
Monopoly is what you get when there is no regulation. Does anyone really want to argue that? Throughout history, what we've had is large corporations and banks getting larger without limit as they consume smaller efforts with anti-competitive practices, practices which are "natural" and dont' involve forcible coercion.
Sorry but Libertarianism is completely confused, at best and a refuge for scoundrels at worst. The whole Milton Friedman-Ayn Rand-Alan Greespan wing of libertariansim is just thinly disguised sociopathy. Rand herself was a true blue sociopath as evidenced not just from her policy recommendations but her personal utterances and interperonsal relations and Friedman, lest we forget, helped, approved and supported Pinochet , a torturer, terrorist, and mass murderer. and Greenspan's fantasy that the market is self correcting under all crcumstances, that it's impossible, as in physics-style impossible, for something like the 2008 crash to every happen in a market such as ours.
As far as indentured servitude goes, since when are libertarians concerned with one party's ability to inflict "duress" n another party? That is the whole point of not limiting financial power inequalities. If I own all the land through deals i made, I can shut off food production to everyone else and no one can do anything about it. If me and my buddies get together and decide not to hire Black people, then that's our business. If we decide to make a list of people to whom we dont' want food sold to or jobs offered to then that's out business.
People have power in this world to the extent that they control resources. For all practical purposes there is no upper limit on the resources a person can control under Libertarian schemes- a fact Libertarians are well aware of. IT follows immediately that there is no upper limit on the power Libertariansim gives someone over other people's lives and fates and their ability to pursue happiness . Libertarianism could give a shit about creating a fair and equitable world. It's monomanically obsessed with process and keeping the number of rules which govern that process as small as possible and what comes out the other end of this for real flesh and blood members of society who have to live and suffer under this "purity" , well , who really gives a fuck? It's a kind of poitical and social autism.
It's not a coincidence that Rand Paul would roll back the civil rights legislation of the 60s. That's a prinicpled decision on his part that comes straight out of the Libertairan playbook.
Sorry, it's nto just that the Koch brothers have given it a bad name. It goes all the way back to Greespan and Friedman and Ayn Rand . This is a political movement built upon the predatory and incredibly short-sighted ideas of sociopaths and autistics. It just is.
One more thing. Libertariansim shares a LOT in common with Marxism in a very specific way- it suffers from 19th century-physics-envy. Like Marxism, it posits that a set of "laws" which should govern a "system" and if those "laws" are followed then the sytem's behavior will be predictable.
Well folks, that is just pure physics-envy bullshit when it's applied to hyper complex "systems" like "the economy" and "people's economic behavior", which are "systems" only in the sense that you have applied that word "system" to them and in no other meaningful sense.
This whole 19th century "call it a system and devine the sytem's behavior from a few underlying princples" is absolute wishful thinking. If you want to reduce it to a few underlying principles then reduce it to the physical forces - gravity the strong force, the weak force etc. and come show it to everyone when you're done. And good luck with that, too.
Most new houses nowadays are gigantic. I'm not sure why. But if you don't want a gigantic house, it seems you either buy something that's 50+ years old, or a townhome. For $160k I'm sure you could build a very nice, modest house. My guess is that the banks probably don't like financing something like, though if you're paying cash then it won't matter.