NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard that Libertarians from all over our country (US) are going to immigrate to one state (I think New Hampshire) and flood the next state ellection.
Has anyone heard anything about that or have an opinion of it?

"Libertarian Controled State"

Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?

"Libertarian Controled State"

Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?

:-D

And I don't think if all the Libertarians flood a single state, then they can swing much of anything in their own favor. MAYBE they can move the election to a little more in the Democratic direction, but that's about it. The only places that would make a massive impact would be the larger states and you need a larger number than the Libertarians have to pull it off. I wouldn't think that it'll happen... but it'll be funny as hell to watch 'em try.

*packs my bags and heads to New Hampshire*

I'd have thought Vermont would be their destination. It's the only state whose reps. in the House are third party.

:-D

And I don't think if all the Libertarians flood a single state, then they can swing much of anything in their own favor. MAYBE they can move the election to a little more in the Democratic direction, but that's about it. The only places that would make a massive impact would be the larger states and you need a larger number than the Libertarians have to pull it off. I wouldn't think that it'll happen... but it'll be funny as hell to watch 'em try.


The Libertarian party is the largest third party in the states. We hold over 300 elected offices nationwide and if the '04 Libertarian vote is any indicator, we've got somewhere around 200,000 votes, I think. In theory, if we were all to converge in one state, we'd definately at least get a governor out of it, and after a few years probably a more sensible state congress too. That said, I doubt it's going to happen.

EDIT: also, the idea that third party votes swing the bipartisan vote is a myth. Take, for example, all the crazy hippies that support Ralph Nader. One would argue they'd vote for a democrat under normal circumstances, but you have to take into account that the democratic party would have to move that much farther to the left to capture the Crazy Hippie vote, and they'd probably lose out on some more of their voters, particularly the few rich ones. Same thing with Republicans and Libertarians. If the Republicans want my vote in this lifetime, they'd better start making some serious changes.

I heard that Libertarians from all over our country (US) are going to immigrate to one state (I think New Hampshire) and flood the next state ellection.
Has anyone heard anything about that or have an opinion of it?

http://www.freestateproject.org/

and the plan isn't to flood the election, but to create a significant concentration of pro-liberty people in a state with a relatively small population. though they are still down like 13,500 people from their goal.

I'd have thought Vermont would be their destination. It's the only state whose reps. in the House are third party.

but bernie is a socialist. there will probably have to be a sign on that highway going north from ma. "hippies this way, freemarketeers that"

Look at my signature. I voted "other" because I'm a Libertarian Socialist.

An American Libertarian government has too little in the way of social programs to help the less fortunate people, and that's the main reason I'm against such a system.

Look at my signature. I voted "other" because I'm a Libertarian Socialist.

An American Libertarian government has too little in the way of social programs to help the less fortunate people, and that's the main reason I'm against such a system.
The Libertarian party believes that welfare is ultimately harmful to its recipients. They become utterly dependent on the state for support.

The Libertarian party believes that welfare is ultimately harmful to its recipients. They become utterly dependent on the state for support.

They only become utterly dependent if they aren't given the opportunity to get back on their feet, which is often the case.

The Libertarian party believes that welfare is ultimately harmful to its recipients. They become utterly dependent on the state for support.


EDITED VERSION:
The Libertarian Party believes lots of things. Doesn't make them true.

IMAO, many of them are silly.

Do we really need to debate the views of the LP?


(The original was more confrontational than I intended.)

IMO, the Libertarian Party believes lots of silly things.

Do we really need to debate the views of the LP?

No. You don't have to, you are at liberty to do so or not do so, as you wish. (Isn't that a libertarian position though?)

No. You don't have to, you are at liberty to do so or not do so, as you wish. (Isn't that a libertarian position though?)

:D

but bernie is a socialist. there will probably have to be a sign on that highway going north from ma. "hippies this way, freemarketeers that"

Probably.

Actually, when I went to NH a few years ago, and they had state run liquor stores right off the highway. It was like a rest stop: drive in, buy, and drive off. I really wonder what the logic behind that was :confused: .

Yeah, just for clarification, it's called The Free State Project, and they're destination is New Hampshire.

Look at my signature. I voted "other" because I'm a Libertarian Socialist.

An American Libertarian government has too little in the way of social programs to help the less fortunate people, and that's the main reason I'm against such a system.

eh, as long as we keep 'em honest, they could serve as a good sort of intermediate step toward libertarian socialism. after all, they do at least claim to want to stop subsidizing the gross inefficiency of the capitalists. and we can probably get them to remove the statist barriers against working people organizing themselves effectively on the grounds of being consistent.

micah bales' article (http://www.freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/anarchy.php) on the possibility of libertarian socialist cooperation with the free state project

Yeah, just for clarification, it's called The Free State Project, and they're destination is New Hampshire.

Is New Hampshire the least populous state in America?

Why not go to Delaware or Alaska?

Is New Hampshire the least populous state in America?

No, I think that "honor" is still held by Wyoming.
Still, you could see the woods and total wilderness from downtown Manchester.

eh, as long as we keep 'em honest, they could serve as a good sort of intermediate step toward libertarian socialism. after all, they do at least claim to want to stop subsidizing the gross inefficiency of the capitalists. and we can probably get them to remove the statist barriers against working people organizing themselves effectively on the grounds of being consistent.

micah bales' article (http://www.freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/anarchy.php) on the possibility of libertarian socialist cooperation with the free state project

It sounds pretty good.

Is New Hampshire the least populous state in America?

Why not go to Delaware or Alaska?

there was a vote when they reached 5,000 members. the ranked order of preference was:

1. New Hampshire
2. Wyoming
3. Montana
4. Idaho
5. Alaska
6. Maine
7. Vermont
8. Delaware
9. South Dakota
10. North Dakota

there was a vote when they reached 5,000 members. the ranked order of preference was:

1. New Hampshire
2. Wyoming
3. Montana
4. Idaho
5. Alaska
6. Maine
7. Vermont
8. Delaware
9. South Dakota
10. North Dakota

Did California or Texas come last?

How long do you have to live in a state before you can register to vote there? Can someone live at a boarding house?

More importantly would it work?

Did California or Texas come last?

they weren't on the list of possibilities. there was a whole set of criteria to figure out which state would make likely candidates (including low population, cheap statewide election campaigns, and their silly misguided notion that republican-voting states are libertarian leaning).

eh, as long as we keep 'em honest, they could serve as a good sort of intermediate step toward libertarian socialism. after all, they do at least claim to want to stop subsidizing the gross inefficiency of the capitalists. and we can probably get them to remove the statist barriers against working people organizing themselves effectively on the grounds of being consistent.


Frankly though, I think the American Libertarian Party and supporters of socialism have too little in common to ever really work successfully in cooperation. Yes, the libertarians want to end corporate welfare, but they also want to end social welfare. And as far as taxation and the economy are concerned, the LP and the socialists are about as far opposite as you can get.

EDITED VERSION:
The Libertarian Party believes lots of things. Doesn't make them true.

IMAO, many of them are silly.

I was just explaining their position. I didn't say that I agreed with it.

Yeah, just for clarification, it's called The Free State Project, and they're destination is New Hampshire.

Here's a link to the website:

http://www.freestateproject.org

It sounds like a fun experiment to participate in, if I didn't have to work for a living. Damned work - it's always getting in the way of life!!

I live in NH

We are not the least populated state by any means... but I really don't understand why they would want to come here....
Oh and about the State Liquor Stores... I'm not really sure why we do it ...there is no state sales tax here, also no state income tax.. :p
but they regulate and tax some weird stuff...

Frankly though, I think the American Libertarian Party and supporters of socialism have too little in common to ever really work successfully in cooperation. Yes, the libertarians want to end corporate welfare, but they also want to end social welfare. And as far as taxation and the economy are concerned, the LP and the socialists are about as far opposite as you can get.


ah, but i'm talking about libertarian socialism. i don't care too much for taxation of working people and i don't want social welfare to be handled by the state. as long as libertarians are serious about their opposition to state intervention, and not just using it as cover for pro-capitalist and anti-worker actions, then there are grounds for us to work together. its just a matter of keeping them honest and dismantling the state in a way so that the transition does the least possible harm to working people.

Corporate welfare is almost, if not more, expensive than private welfare is! There are real horrors committed by companies and the richest people, through the state. Take for instance flood insurance. It can be purchased from the state whenever no company will offer it. It's dirt-cheap, too.

You can buy state insurance when you're on sand-beach properties. You know, the kind that get ruined the first time a particularly strong wave comes through and destroyed if it storms. By the way, these are also expensive pieces of real estate, thanks to the view. So, <insert rich person here> buys a beach property for their summer home, buys federal insurance because no insurance company is idiotic enough to pay for them, and every time a storm blows through, the government will build them a new house.


That's one of the things any good libertarian should want to eliminate. Social welfare is something that should be stripped down or at least changed severely, yes I believe that. However, the government should step out of corporate welfare completely, and quickly! Let the ones in business succeed or fail on their own merits, as they claim to want. It is not the government's job to subsidize corporate inefficiencies and idiocies.

I was just explaining their position. I didn't say that I agreed with it.

My bad.

Mention of the LP brings out the worst in me. (And my best is pretty snotty.)

Corporate welfare is almost, if not more, expensive than private welfare is! There are real horrors committed by companies and the richest people, through the state. Take for instance flood insurance. It can be purchased from the state whenever no company will offer it. It's dirt-cheap, too.

You can buy state insurance when you're on sand-beach properties. You know, the kind that get ruined the first time a particularly strong wave comes through and destroyed if it storms. By the way, these are also expensive pieces of real estate, thanks to the view. So, <insert rich person here> buys a beach property for their summer home, buys federal insurance because no insurance company is idiotic enough to pay for them, and every time a storm blows through, the government will build them a new house.


That's one of the things any good libertarian should want to eliminate. Social welfare is something that should be stripped down or at least changed severely, yes I believe that. However, the government should step out of corporate welfare completely, and quickly! Let the ones in business succeed or fail on their own merits, as they claim to want. It is not the government's job to subsidize corporate inefficiencies and idiocies.
You're my new favorite.

ah, but i'm talking about libertarian socialism. i don't care too much for taxation of working people and i don't want social welfare to be handled by the state. as long as libertarians are serious about their opposition to state intervention, and not just using it as cover for pro-capitalist and anti-worker actions, then there are grounds for us to work together. its just a matter of keeping them honest and dismantling the state in a way so that the transition does the least possible harm to working people.

I'm a libertarian, and my opposition to state intervention is exactly what it says on the tin. It's not pro-capitalist or anti-worker, or anti-capitalist or pro-worker, I don't even make a distinction between capitalist and worker. They are equals in that they both have the right to employ, to be employed, to own, to sell and to buy. It's purely an aversion to state intervention, except where obviously necessary (to stop thieves and murderers).

I don't want to alter the nature of the discussion, but I'd like to point out that our style of minarchism and dislike for government intervention differs from yours in that it's not just anti-statism, but also the belief that no private citizen has the right to force another one to do or not to do something either. Thus, for someone to say "you have no right to employ this willing person in your factory" or "you have no right to work in this guy's factory" is unacceptable by the libertarian philosophy.

i cant see the people of "live free or die" new hampshire letting a bunch of out of staters tell them how to run their state even if its pretty much the way they do things now. its bad enough when people move in from massachusetts and start expecting services from the government.

I'm a libertarian, and my opposition to state intervention is exactly what it says on the tin. It's not pro-capitalist or anti-worker, or anti-capitalist or pro-worker, I don't even make a distinction between capitalist and worker. They are equals in that they both have the right to employ, to be employed, to own, to sell and to buy. It's purely an aversion to state intervention, except where obviously necessary (to stop thieves and murderers).

so you are opposed to 'right to work' laws, yes? seeing as they disallow employees and employers from making a voluntary contract about employment conditions and all. if so, excellent. but be aware that that didn't appear to be the majority position taken one the free state project forums a year ago. in fact, 'right to work' laws were considered a positive thing to be looked for in a state back during the voting phase. in official fsp documents, no less.

and you are also opposed to laws barring jurisdictional strikes, secondary boycotts, and all the other pro-capitalist labor laws, right? again, if so, awesome. but that isn't exactly the most overwhelming position of the right-wing libertarian movement as i have encountered them.

but be aware that that didn't appear to be the majority position taken one the free state project forums a year ago. in fact, 'right to work' laws were considered a positive thing to be looked for in a state back during the voting phase. in official fsp documents, no less.

hell, jason sorens (they guy who came up with the whole idea and is a major part of its leadership) has agrued

"It is the duty of libertarian governments to make all labor unions illegal..."
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=3520.0

so you'll have to pardon me if i'm a little distrustful on the whole issue.

I heard that Libertarians from all over our country (US) are going to immigrate to one state (I think New Hampshire) and flood the next state ellection.
Has anyone heard anything about that or have an opinion of it?

Yes. In fact, I am a member of the Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org). I am here to testify that the purpose is not to "flood" the election, but to influence politics through activism, for which way less participants are required. Please go to the project's site (http://www.freestateproject.org) to check it out, it's really neat. :fluffle:

FreeSoviets, I know Jason Sorens personally and think you misunderstand. It seems to me that one was proposed to the forum members as a "discuss" statement, if you know what I mean.

FreeSoviets, I know Jason Sorens personally and think you misunderstand. It seems to me that one was proposed to the forum members as a "discuss" statement, if you know what I mean.

quite possibly. but i have seen people who identify as libertarians argue such things as their honest positions. it doesn't fall outside of my expectations of things an american libertarian might hold. and that fact worries me.

OOC/Edit/Note: This is Shrin Kali, and I did not realize I was logged in as this nation. I didn't realize I could log in as my alt nation. Many apologies.

so you are opposed to 'right to work' laws, yes? seeing as they disallow employees and employers from making a voluntary contract about employment conditions and all. if so, excellent. but be aware that that didn't appear to be the majority position taken one the free state project forums a year ago. in fact, 'right to work' laws were considered a positive thing to be looked for in a state back during the voting phase. in official fsp documents, no less.

and you are also opposed to laws barring jurisdictional strikes, secondary boycotts, and all the other pro-capitalist labor laws, right? again, if so, awesome. but that isn't exactly the most overwhelming position of the right-wing libertarian movement as i have encountered them.


I don't really know what 'right to work' means. I haven't heard the term before. This is a grevious error on my part. I can't understand what it is by context, either.

However, I can respond to your second paragraph better. Labor unions are good for the reason that they privately enforce corporate honesty in treatment of workers. They're one thing I believe the government should be kept out of, neither discouraging nor promoting. Labor unions should not even be visible to the government. Workers should join them because it helps them.

Unfortunately, I also have to respect the owner's right to fire union workers if they choose. This enforces union honesty, and ensures that union demands don't kill businesses. As said in the last paragraph, I cannot justify governmental discouragement or support of unionization.

Businesses should ideally respect unions because that helps them in turn. After all, happy workers are productive workers. If both sides remain honest to what the industry can support, the situation improves on all sides.

I don't really know what 'right to work' means. I haven't heard the term before. This is a grevious error on my part. I can't understand what it is by context, either.

sorry, i should be more clear.

a 'right to work' law essentially is a law that makes it illegal for a business and a union to agree to a contract that states that all employees of that business must be members of the union (or become such within x number of days) as a condition of employment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work

Is New Hampshire the least populous state in America?

Why not go to Delaware or Alaska?
We hear that there's enough log goin' down in da Tongass that there'll be some room for some igloos! Tom Bodett might drop on by, 'specially since we gots Motel 6's aplenty, and "we'll leave the light on for ya."
The mail might be kinda slow since they's already run that Iditarod. The blind girl had to scratch *pout* (she's a model, btw)
Well all stupid jokes aside if they came up here they'd have a lot of company.

Judging based on the explanation I just got, I think I'd oppose "right to work" laws, yes. If the company feels like voluntarily signing into such a contract, such the better for them. When a union makes demands, people who aren't in the union but are in the company benefit as well - freeloaders shouldn't earn benefits they didn't participate in trying to get.
I don't know what the "official" Libertarian stance on this would be. To me, though, it just seems like another unnecessary and potentially restrictive law.

The FSP sounds interesting, but I've gotta wonder...
What the hell are you going to do with all that liberty in New Hampshire?

Sounds really boring.

They only become utterly dependent if they aren't given the opportunity to get back on their feet, which is often the case.

The problem with welfare is that the wrong people get into it, but to prevent these abusers of the system would require too much red tape bureaucracy that would "time out" a lot of deserving recipients.

Take this example my social studies teacher loves to complain about: a house in her neighborhood where the same family has been living in gov't-funded housing for years and years, never bothering to look for a job and in fact selling drugs. The landlord doesn't give a damn because he gets paid the rent by the government either way and lives out in the suburbs far away from the consequences. I forget why the police haven't done anything about it, but the point being - these guys are simply mooching off the taxpayers while we know that there are lots of single mothers etc. who live far beneath the poverty line and should be getting benefits but aren't.

WOW! I can't believe we scored this highly in this.

Man, we're growing! I think we could take back a few state legislature seats in the next few elections!!