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.
According to the Free State Project website, ``In a vote that ended in September 2003, FSP participants chose New Hampshire because it has a low state and local tax burden, a low level of dependence on federal spending, a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889, low crime levels, a dynamic economy with plenty of jobs and investment, and a general culture of individual responsibility, independence, and self-reliance.''
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.
$165,000.00 for a 972 sqft mobile home on 1.08 acres? Christ, I could buy over 200 acres for less than that around here, and still have plenty left over to build a house.
Free state my ass. More like rip you off on cost of living state.
The trouble with cheap land is that it's a long way from where you want to be.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Less people, mostly
There are other reasons, but really, it's all population count. 20,000 people moving to California with a united voting bloc wouldn't make a dent in that state's policies, amid the 39 million other residents. New Hampshire is just over 1 mil total population. Assuming 20,000 people displace 20,000 current residents (moving in as others move out), they'd comprise nearly 2% of the entire state.
Given the average turn out of ~50%, and assuming all of these people are active voters, within a few districts ... they could throw a serious wrench into the political gears.
This signature is false.
Yes you can. There a surprisingly large high tech sector in Nashua
(I've never lived in NH, but I has a couple of customers I was supporting in Nashua.)
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
I was expecting to read New Hampshire had seceded from the other 49 but obviously "Free State" means something different in American English.
That, and the right of revolt is right in the state constitution...
"Live Free or Die" is the motto for a reason...
The far southeast of the state is basically Boston exurbs, and there's a bunch of engineer types who live there and commute in to the Boston area. Although the rest of New Hampshire barely considers those people to be part of the state.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yes, if they all vote as a well regimented bloc.
Which if you think about it, implies a slightly ironic idea of "freedom".
Can I find a decent software engineering job there?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Two very important things:
1) Virtually no people.
2) A libertarian ethos.
In those circumstances 20k libertarian activists should be able to totally revolutionize the state's politics, which will in turn mean that the national political scene has to deal with libertarian ideas in a much more serious way then otherwise.
That's the plan. And if they all actually follow the fuck through it will work. The issue is that getting 20k people to click on an internet link saying "I will move to New Hampshire in the future" is way easier then getting them to move to NH, much less getting them to move to NH and all agree on a single political program.
The point is that being a State House Representative is not a full time job. Whether it should be or not is a different question, but in the U.S. the position of State Legislator is mostly considered part-time.
https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_a_full-time_legislature
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I have a friend who has lived there her entire life and she's bitched about how people are now coming into meetings and derailing them. Everyone else is trying to get work done and they're ranting about some very obscure topic and how it's oppressing them. They don't have the best rep locally.
However, if the 20k people move, the other 49 states will become that much nicer of a place to live.
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.
"The issue is that getting 20k people to click on an internet link saying "I will move to New Hampshire in the future" is way easier then getting them to move to NH, much less getting them to move to NH and all agree on a single political program."
It's the same concept as Mars One, except that the organization would have to get its people to move the harsher New Hampshire climate.
...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.
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
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!
And someone who says libertarians (you know, the small government people) are fascists.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
...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.
I don't know why you would make that assumption. There are many, many political activists that are quite poor, and that requires dedicating more time to the cause than is asked of part-time legislators. In fact, looking through the biographies of the current legislators gives lie to your assumption. For instance, Michael Abbott is a retired high school teacher who started out working at a grocery store. And Glen Aldrich is a carpenter with no more than a high school diploma.
I think having regular citizen legislators, with not much financial gain to be had from the job, is an excellent way to run a state house. It means you are more likely to get people involved for the right reasons, instead of career politicians looking for money and power.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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
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