NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a movement called the Free State Project, which is based on the idea that people do best with limited government. With the way government seems to be taking over our lives, and run by fat cats, I find this idea attractive.

The idea behind the movement is that a lot of the laws that let government stick its nose in your business aren't made in Washington, but in state capitols and city halls. So, why not get people who don't want that together and have them move to a small state, preferably one that already has a culture of small government?

It's been done, and that state is New Hampshire. New Hampshire has NO:
Sales Tax
Income tax (except on interest and dividends)
Helmet law
Seatbelt law
Car insurance law

It has the overall lowest taxes of any state except Alaska. It has the lowest crime rate. It is a shall-issue state for concealed-carry.

Now imagine what it will be like when thousands of people who don't want government to tell them what to do move there, and get politically active.

Read more about the movement here http://www.freestateproject.org/

The porcupine is the movement's mascot, and the Porcupine Festival, coming up in a week, is a great chance for people from out of state to learn about the movement and what the state has to offer. You can read more here: http://freestateproject.org/festival

Hell I just may move to NH.

Free state project? Welcome to 3 years ago. I thought that whole thing went away?

Free state project? Welcome to 3 years ago. I thought that whole thing went away?

Nope, it's still going on. :D

Hobbes believed that man needed government to enforce morality and that without it man was monstrous and worse than a monster. The Marquis de Sade, originator of the word sadism, bore this out. The reason you get low crime rates in an anarchy is because nothing is criminal.

Hobbes believed that man needed government to enforce morality and that without it man was monstrous and worse than a monster. The Marquis de Sade, originator of the word sadism, bore this out. The reason you get low crime rates in an anarchy is because nothing is criminal.

You know they're not advocating anarchy, right?

You know they're not advocating anarchy, right?
I know, but the point is man needs strong government and this not a strong governemnt.

I know, but the point is man needs strong government and this not a strong governemnt.

Yea, but if the government gets too strong, it can become a police state, it is better to have a weak government than a strong one.

Yea, but if the government gets too strong, it can become a police state, it is better to have a weak government than a strong one.
Wrong. A strong government answerable to its people is better than any form of weak government because it controls and checks the urges and inherent evil of its people while not becoming tyrannous.

I know, but the point is man needs strong government and this not a strong governemnt.

That depends on what you term a strong government. FSPers want the government to be strong only in certain areas, such as policing. I don't necessarily agree with the FSP philosophy of libertarianism anymore, but I agree with them that we don't need a strong Federal government. I believe the states should have the preponderance of duties.

Wrong. A strong government answerable to its people is better than any form of weak government because it controls and checks the urges and inherent evil of its people while not becoming tyrannous.

So, we should allow the government to tell us what is evil, instead of teaching the people themselves so that they can govern themselves without gov co. holding their hands?

So, we should allow the government to tell us what is evil, instead of teaching the people themselves so that they can govern themselves without gov co. holding their hands?

If it is democratically elected and accountable to the people, why not?

So, we should allow the government to tell us what is evil, instead of teaching the people themselves so that they can govern themselves without gov co. holding their hands?
Again, Marquis de Sade. People like him need the strong governemnt. People without government do not decide what is right or wrong, they act on impulse and that impulse can be very evil.

Helmet law
Seatbelt law
Car insurance law

Helmet laws exist because, hmm, some people just don't get that when you're going 50kmph and have an accident, your brains are going to splatter without any helmet on.

Seatbelt laws exist for that exact same reason. Not only that, but as soon as you have an accident without a seatbelt, you not only risk hurting yourself more, but you end up in a situation where you become a projectile.

Car insurance laws exist because cars are expensive, and if you have a car and you crash into someone else, that someone else needs to be assured that you can pay for the damages that you have caused.

If it is democratically elected and accountable to the people, why not?

Because, giving the government the power to tell us what is evil, and what isn't and protecting us from that "evil" will give too much power to the government. They can proclaim anything that's evil. "Oops skateboarding is evil." "Oops kissing in public is evil." People can get along with very little government, it has happenened in the past and worked very well. People don't need gov. co. to tell them how to run their lives.

Helmet laws exist because, hmm, some people just don't get that when you're going 50kmph and have an accident, your brains are going to splatter without any helmet on.

Yea, but here in my state, we have helment laws, people still drive around without helmnets. So it's pretty much a pointless law which apparently doesn't get enforced, at least not in my area. What people need to learn, is how to think for themselves, they need to learn that they are responsible for their own action. How are they going to learn that with gov. co. coddling them?

Seatbelt laws exist for that exact same reason. Not only that, but as soon as you have an accident without a seatbelt, you not only risk hurting yourself more, but you end up in a situation where you become a projectile.

Once again, it comes to personal responsibility. That person chooses to not wear a seatbelt, so he should be able to face the responsibility and live with it for the rest of his life. We don't need Gov. Co. for this.


Car insurance laws exist because cars are expensive, and if you have a car and you crash into someone else, that someone else needs to be assured that you can pay for the damages that you have caused.

got a point there.

Helmet laws exist because, hmm, some people just don't get that when you're going 50kmph and have an accident, your brains are going to splatter without any helmet on.

That should be their choice. Is the government an extension of your parents, telling you what you should and should not do? This is one step from the government telling you to eat your peas or you can't have iced cream.

Seatbelt laws exist for that exact same reason. Not only that, but as soon as you have an accident without a seatbelt, you not only risk hurting yourself more, but you end up in a situation where you become a projectile.

Again, parent state mentality. Seat belt laws are actually in place because the insurance lobby wants them- they can deny insurance claims, or pay out in reduced sums in some states/countries if you were "breaking the law" while driving.

Car insurance laws exist because cars are expensive, and if you have a car and you crash into someone else, that someone else needs to be assured that you can pay for the damages that you have caused.

Even if that were the only type of insurance usually required (it is not), that is what the courts are for. All having mandatory insurane does is prop up a corrupt industry which does nothing but lobby for more regulations, so they can charge more money. Having it required is, in effect, a tax on driving, that the government has you pay to straight to the interest group. I'd much rather pay for any accident I cause then pay out money every month when I am a safe driver and have never caused an accident.

Even if that were the only type of insurance usually required (it is not), that is what the courts are for. All having mandatory insurane does is prop up a corrupt industry which does nothing but lobby for more regulations, so they can charge more money. Having it required is, in effect, a tax on driving, that the government has you pay to straight to the interest group. I'd much rather pay for any accident I cause then pay out money every month when I am a safe driver and have never caused an accident.
Actually, it is up here in Canada. PLPD is all you're legally required to have.

As for the Courts, well, you can't get blood from a stone. Requiring insurance makes sure you're not dealing with a stone.

Firstly, perhaps some people are too stupid to wear helmets/seatbelts, in which case they need to be informed to help prevent killing themselves/others. If people are not too stupid to take basic safety precautions, then they will wear hemets/seatbelts, because only an idiot would not. If everyone is wearing helmets/seatbelts then what does it matter if there is a law?

Secondly, are the New Hampshirians cool with this? 'Cos if it was me I would be quite annoyed if my state got invaded by a rabid horde of Libertarians...

Firstly, perhaps some people are too stupid to wear helmets/seatbelts, in which case they need to be informed to help prevent killing themselves/others. If people are not too stupid to take basic safety precautions, then they will wear hemets/seatbelts, because only an idiot would not. If everyone is wearing helmets/seatbelts then what does it matter if there is a law?

Secondly, are the New Hampshirians cool with this? 'Cos if it was me I would be quite annoyed if my state got invaded by a rabid horde of Libertarians...

Yes, they are cool with it. That's the way they live already.

They are the only state that forces prison inmates to make license plates for cars with the motto, "Live Free Or Die"

That should be their choice. Is the government an extension of your parents, telling you what you should and should not do? This is one step from the government telling you to eat your peas or you can't have iced cream.

Again, parent state mentality. Seat belt laws are actually in place because the insurance lobby wants them- they can deny insurance claims, or pay out in reduced sums in some states/countries if you were "breaking the law" while driving.

Yea, but here in my state, we have helment laws, people still drive around without helmnets. So it's pretty much a pointless law which apparently doesn't get enforced, at least not in my area. What people need to learn, is how to think for themselves, they need to learn that they are responsible for their own action. How are they going to learn that with gov. co. coddling them?

Once again, it comes to personal responsibility. That person chooses to not wear a seatbelt, so he should be able to face the responsibility and live with it for the rest of his life. We don't need Gov. Co. for this.

I don't think the laws are an attempt to wrap us up. Rather, these laws, combined with the typical insurances that people have, are supposed to encourage personal responsibility. I would say that these laws support insurance companies saying "wear a seatbelt, or no money." or "wear a helmet, or no insurance." thus meaning if you don't wear a seatbelt, you're also taking the personal responsibility that you won't get paid for any damages that occur to you while you're not wearing this seatbelt (and driving a car, obviously).

It very much is supporting the insurance lobby and I have no qualms with that.


Even if that were the only type of insurance usually required (it is not), that is what the courts are for. All having mandatory insurane does is prop up a corrupt industry which does nothing but lobby for more regulations, so they can charge more money. Having it required is, in effect, a tax on driving, that the government has you pay to straight to the interest group. I'd much rather pay for any accident I cause then pay out money every month when I am a safe driver and have never caused an accident.

And you'd rather have the government pay for the accidents you can't pay for and go to jail than have a corrupt company pay for your accidents?

As for the Courts, well, you can't get blood from a stone. Requiring insurance makes sure you're not dealing with a stone.

"Stones" can't afford insurance. I suppose they could get tossed in jail for driving without insurance, but that won't fix my wrecked car.

If they can't afford insurance, and if insurance is required to drive.. it stands to reason they won't be driving unless they're violating the law.

The only other point I can assume you're arguing is that unless enforcement is perfect, nothing should be enforced, which is clearly bogus.

I don't think the laws are an attempt to wrap us up. Rather, these laws, combined with the typical insurances that people have, are supposed to encourage personal responsibility. I would say that these laws support insurance companies saying "wear a seatbelt, or no money." or "wear a helmet, or no insurance." thus meaning if you don't wear a seatbelt, you're also taking the personal responsibility that you won't get paid for any damages that occur to you while you're not wearing this seatbelt (and driving a car, obviously).


Well, we already found out a way to "enforce" the seatbelt and helnment wearing without Gov Co. If people want to get insure, all that has to happen is that the insurance company tells them that unless they wear a seatbelt/helnment they will have high premiums, the safer they are, the lower their preminums are etc. Get enough insurance company to do this, then the people will have no choice but to wear seatbelts and wear helnments. So see, you just written Gov. Co. right out of the picture.

There is a movement called the Free State Project, which is based on the idea that people do best with limited government. With the way government seems to be taking over our lives, and run by fat cats, I find this idea attractive.

The idea behind the movement is that a lot of the laws that let government stick its nose in your business aren't made in Washington, but in state capitols and city halls. So, why not get people who don't want that together and have them move to a small state, preferably one that already has a culture of small government?

It's been done, and that state is New Hampshire. New Hampshire has NO:
Sales Tax
Income tax (except on interest and dividends)
Helmet law
Seatbelt law
Car insurance law

It has the overall lowest taxes of any state except Alaska. It has the lowest crime rate. It is a shall-issue state for concealed-carry.

Now imagine what it will be like when thousands of people who don't want government to tell them what to do move there, and get politically active.

Read more about the movement here http://www.freestateproject.org/

The porcupine is the movement's mascot, and the Porcupine Festival, coming up in a week, is a great chance for people from out of state to learn about the movement and what the state has to offer. You can read more here: http://freestateproject.org/festival

Hell I just may move to NH.

How cultish.

Come, join and live with the "Heavens Gate" cult. You get spaceships and asteroids plus nobody can force you to live in "reality".

Now, Imagine if a bunch of people came together to cut off their nads and eat cyanide. One huge hell of a trip to Hale-Bop.

The Heavens-Gate mascot is an alien with a huge head. There will be a comet soon and we'll do the traditional castration&suicide in celebration.

Or...In case you don't want monogamy with mature women, just lots and lots of underage girls and some Disney-esque rituals to boot: Move to Utah.

etc...

How cultish.

Come, join and live with the "Heavens Gate" cult. You get spaceships and asteroids plus nobody can force you to live in "reality".

Now, Imagine if a bunch of people came together to cut off their nads and eat cyanide. One huge hell of a trip to Hale-Bop.

The Heavens-Gate mascot is an alien with a huge head. There will be a comet soon and we'll do the traditional castration&suicide in celebration.

Or...In case you don't want monogamy with mature women, just lots and lots of underage girls and some Disney-esque rituals to boot: Move to Utah.

etc...


Ummm k... and how did any of that relates to this thread?

I think Wang is trying to trollishly equate a group of people who wish to live their lives without governmental interference with agroup of religious nutcases.......

It's been done, and that state is New Hampshire. New Hampshire has NO:
Sales Tax


Yes, we of Massachusetts run up there to go shopping all the time. :)


The idea behind the movement is that a lot of the laws that let government stick its nose in your business aren't made in Washington, but in state capitols and city halls.


True. Local and state-level government affect our lives the most, but very few people care about them when the federal gov't has a much more far-reaching image.

I think Wang is trying to trollishly equate a group of people who wish to live their lives without governmental interference with agroup of religious nutcases.......

Whats wrong with not having government being so intrusive in your life?

Hell I just may move to NH.

Hell yeah, im so going there.:)

Whats wrong with not having government being so intrusive in your life?

You really want a big guy in a suit and a crew cut checking underneath your sack to look for WMD's?

sorry wilgrove i missread what you said, I didnt see the NOT, but i still like what i siad.:)

I am not nostalgic about the past. It was pretty terrible. Our lives are better now. That is the reality we have to live with. You can't turn back the clock, and those who do end up creating worse problems than the ones that are happening now. Live in the present; it is the best way to solve present problems. Wonderfully deluded things like:

1) In the past there were no immigrants we should get rid of all immigrants.

2) People acted more morally when the church controlled everthing.

3) People had more freedom in some mythical past we should have no laws so we can go back to living like the Athenians.

4) There was no environmental degradation in the past, we should all live in mud huts.

Yea, but if the government gets too strong, it can become a police state, it is better to have a weak government than a strong one.


No, it is better to have a strong, good government than either a weak one or a police state.

Cut out the false dichotomy, its dishonest.


Dont like to pay taxes? Move to somalia.

No, it is better to have a strong, good government than either a weak one or a police state.

Cut out the false dichotomy, its dishonest.


Dont like to pay taxes? Move to somalia.

What is this false dichotomy you speak of?

No, it is better to have a strong, good government than either a weak one or a police state.

Cut out the false dichotomy, its dishonest.


Dont like to pay taxes? Move to somalia.
Or man up and don't pay your taxes. Build a house near a lake. Write something interesting and thought provoking.
(I'm agreeing with you by the way.)

I want to point out that NH has a population of only 1.3 million and almost no major cities, is ethnically and racially homogenous, has almost no poverty and a high. Its model only works because the population is so small, so wealthy, so dispersed and so homogenous compared to other places. The limited government model falls apart as the population grows and the strain on services is greater. New Hampshire can only sustain a limited government because they have such little demand for the services government provides.

The concept of limited government is great, but falls apart when it is applied on a larger scale or a denser population. The model simply can't support the level of urbanization or density common in the developed world.

Dont like to pay taxes? Move to somalia.

You know what, I'm sure there are many libertarian-minded Americans, who, if they could afford their own private army, could probably make quite a nice life for themselves in Somalia, to the benefit of all concerned.

I know you were trying to be flippant, but seriously, I think there are some who would like it.

I know, but the point is man needs strong government and this not a strong governemnt.

What makes you say mankind needs strong government?
I would tend to disagree.

You know what, I'm sure there are many libertarian-minded Americans, who, if they could afford their own private army, could probably make quite a nice life for themselves in Somalia, to the benefit of all concerned.

I know you were trying to be flippant, but seriously, I think there are some who would like it.
I think that is probably true, speaking from my observations as a libertarian-minded person. There is a part of me that thinks starting a settlement in Somalia would be a fun, interesting, and exciting idea. Just one question, does that make me crazy or was I there before? :p

Again, Marquis de Sade. People like him need the strong governemnt. People without government do not decide what is right or wrong, they act on impulse and that impulse can be very evil.

Marquis de Sade was a marquis. A marquis is a noble title. It was a nobility. Ergo he was a part of the government. Ergo your point is retarded.

Sales Tax
Income tax (except on interest and dividends)
Helmet law
Seatbelt law
Car insurance law
Fine, pay lots of money for stuff that normally is free, and die from car and bike accidents. Bloody libertarians...worse than a fascist.

Whats wrong with not having government being so intrusive in your life?

Haveta ask Wang, personally, I think it is a great idea. I don's see it happening here in the US as long as we have so many liberals and conservatives trying to force the rest of us to subscribe to their narrow idealogies.

Fine, pay lots of money for stuff that normally is free, and die from car and bike accidents. Bloody libertarians...worse than a fascist.

I assume you were joking, correct? Erm, I was always led to believe that a fascist is one who wants you to live by their rules and beliefs. Not so? Libertarians would prefer tha tyou decide how to live your own life and have no interest in telling you what to do. We Libs make horrible followers and worse leaders cause we aren't interested in telling others what to do.