Libertarian State!

I put this up in the political mud pit but no cared, so maye more people will read this here.

Are you a "liberty-oriented" person? Are willing to put your self where you mouth is (I hope so)?

Join the free liberty project at www.freestateproject.org...

Why is this the best stragety, over trying to reform the country piecemeal? See www.freestateproject.org...

I'm waiting for them to pick a state (hopefully not Alaska) and then I'll see if I can give them my commitement.

btw there's a list for FSP singles, for all those lonely libertarians that want some liberation: groups.yahoo.com... I thought that was cute.

Ahh I am glad someone else had checked that out.

I have had this pointed to me awhile back...(someone knows my thoughts)

I still think New Hampshire is probubly their best bet.

Ah, the good ol Libertarians.

When i first registered to vote when i was 18 during the 92 elections, i registered and voted Libertarian.

If I had to choose a political party to run the countryk, it would be libertarian, as they tend to be closer to my beliefs than any other party.

But not everything of Libertarians fits my personal beliefs, and some important issues.

Nevertheless, thank you K for posting this, this is what we need: more public awareness of the third parties out there instead of pure coverage on dems and reps all the time.

I just wanted to point something that may have been missed by the causal--addicted-ats-skimmer (CAAS): This project aims to get a bunch of libertarians in one state, where there will then vote the repugants and what note out of office. From there they will improve the state and grow, like a virus in the belly of sick America.

Thats a good idea, yes. Will it work? Youd have to start small, and work your way up! Even Alaska would be a start.

Maybe California will get Libertarian. The important thing is to get rid of dems and repgnants period.

--You gotta love an article title like that. basically the Free State people picked New Hamsphire. If this goes through I wonder if New Hamsphire will have a disproprionate level of "terriorist" criminal charges...

"Political sceptics have dismissed the project as the fringe cult fantasies of a disorganised shower of anarchists and internet geeks.

But Professor Sorens claims membership is soaring as people become angry over increasing restrictions on personal freedom, government surveillance of private individuals and greater state power in the justice system. "

--I think the media infrastructure is going to become very angry if this goes through. I would see emigration laws among states, aimed at "restricting terrorists" pop up soon.

"But the New Hampshire Democratic chairwoman, Kathy Sullivan, said she considered the project "sort of a very fringe group that can best be described as anarchists". "

--and look how smart we are!

"Project members are mostly men and in their 20s and 30s. Many own small businesses and half of them have a university degree, with 18% possessing doctorates and 40% earning more than �40,000 a year. "

www.guardian.co.uk...

"But the New Hampshire Democratic chairwoman, Kathy Sullivan, said she considered the project "sort of a very fringe group that can best be described as anarchists". "

That lady can stick her controlling attitude outta the NEW FREE STATE!
Thats right bitch were coming to New Hampshire!
YEEEEEE HAW!
LIVE FREE OR DIE BITCH !

oops...my bad..old news.

[Edited on 1-10-2003 by kukla]

Damn, I'm a registered libertarian and I wouldn't have picked New Hampshire. I've got a good friend from there and they sure do have a lot of restrictive laws. Take for instance the liscense plate law. In NH you have to have a liscense plate on the front bumper as well as the back! Yeah, they've got a lot of dumb rules to overturn in NH.

It snows too much, its in the North East, an antiquated, out of touch portion of the country. I would have picked Oregon. Its nice. Seems like they only picked NH cause its the "Live Free or Die" state.

And lastly Kathy Sullivan seems a little scared, hey; reducing my people to "anarchists." Well she's a poo poo head. Name calling doesnt do a damn thing. Like BWBT said:
LIVE FREE OR DIE BITCH!

Insite- its easier to overturn dumb laws than entrenched ones. I can't spout off any examples but NH might not be such a bad choice.

what are some examples of entrenched laws in other states? i figured if you have the majority in the state congress you can do whatever you want.

people will keep them in office because of this plan to focus libertarian voters in a geographical area. i figured that population was the major reason for choosing NH, small population means that libertarian immigrant voters have the majority, that way libertarian congresspersons can get a lot of work done (sorry for stating the obvious).

minor reasons could include the fact that its scenic and the people are friendly. maybe there's already a lot of libertarians there. i just feel they should have picked a state that was a little "freer" to begin with.

but youre right, major issues are what count, not the dumb liscense plate law that im sure no one cares about except me and i dont even live there...

Having been thru the site, and their studies, there are many reasons for New Hampshire being the choice.


Some are the


Liberal Gun Laws

Cost of living

Less Federal Government dependancy

Coastline

Residents commonly do not trust regular govt

Most Libertarians elected in office.

The analyzing of all states, has several criteria, which are basically a feasability study, along with the likelyhood factor.

New Hampshire ranks high in most categories, as the state of choice.

I wonder if this is one reason the Presidential Elections almost always reference the beginning and the end, with New Hampshire.? It has less voter responce toward the demo's and repub's, and isnt much of an influenc on the outcome, by the number's.

does anyone know any rules regarding the states power over stopping extensions of the federal executive branch? ill explain what i mean. Can a state control the amount of FBI, DEA, CIA etc. field offices within its borders?

Originally posted by insite
does anyone know any rules regarding the states power over stopping extensions of the federal executive branch? ill explain what i mean. Can a state control the amount of FBI, DEA, CIA etc. field offices within its borders?

now that is a great question, im going to search on that.

Insite- I would think not. As we all know, miltary troops are allowed on our soil to police. The real answer, legalities aside, is reducing thier funding to crap levels, and refusing DHS funding. That way only a certain amount of police officiers could exist. Of course it might be easier to send in the National Guard becaue "NH has a very limited police force and needs to be protected." So I would, with no research, the answer lies in funding.

Be careful that Libertarianism isn't a back door for subvert commie control of the US.

Make sure it is clean or else you will open the gates to hell!