No we lost our freedom, our country, cold out by morons who wanted freebies more then freedom, false security more then liberty

David, thanks for the injection of ironic humor. Shall the sixty million others and I trust you to know why we didn't vote for Willard Romney? Hint: I expect NO HANDOUTS. I work for a living and pay taxes. How 'bout you?

Maybe you who want to secede can get Mitt Romney to sell you some real estate on the Cayman Islands and help you start a compound there or in Canada. Meanwhile, amigos, we'll go forward doing the best we can, based on laws, stable institutions and rational discourse, which is preciously short supply from the far right. The elections are over. They are what they are. Get over it. Remember that if you do vote with your feet, taxes are low in the Caymans, and if you go to Canada, you'll receive health care even if you cannot afford it. As for secession, maybe Texas or South Carolina would be a better bet. We're a bit too moderate here in NH for such a rash move, despite the tiny presence and waning influence of the Free Stater fringe. O cry the beloved country, my reactionary friends!

About that health care in Canada, Mark, it's a two-year, in-residence wait for Americans, so they probably should stay here and enjoy Obamacare! I know I will.

Speaking of Canada, I know the US right wing media entertainment industry has been saying the opposite, but polls have shown consistently that the vast majority of all Canadians actually prefer their health care over ours. Now, that's what I call security!

David, I'm very curious as to what freedoms you've lost this November that you had in October? Or better yet, can you name one that you no longer have in the last 4 years that you had in 2008?

These "freebies" that "hurt the country" that people are bringing up, as an excuse for the Republican presidential loss, are:
1.) An expansion of healthcare coverage (but with all the money still going to the private insurance companies unfortunately).

2.) Restructuring of Student Loan programs, so that the people who will be paying for your Medicare can better support themselves, and not be an indentured servants to private loan companies.

3.) AND the biggest, equal pay and rights for women and homosexuals.

The people whiny about the "freebies" always seem to forget about the actual "freebies" that are already in place that actually harm the fiscal stance of our country. Mainly:

1.) Billions in government subsidies to oil companies, which is the most profitable industry in the history of humanity.

2.) Tax loopholes for for all the upper income brackets. Be they the upperclass, or the uber-rich business class.

So, please, Please, PLEASE give me some examples of "freebies" that you don't like, so we can start an intellectual conversation on how we can right this ship we call the American Experiment. If you don't have any, then please stop the whining, because you're just making your cause and movement look like a bunch of petulant children who need a nap.

It's like I lost the game and now I am quitting the team. Can anyone teach these fools how to get along with the rest of the population?

Actually this has nothing to do with the election. Both parties want the same thing; control over your life and money money money. Leaving this failed country is the only way to save NH. It's a donor state. We pay more in federal taxes then we get back in services. Screw them.

I don't want to belong to a nation that kills innocent men women and children with robotic bombing machines in illegal wars. I don't support killing people like it was a computer game.

I am not whining about it, I am telling you to stop supporting mass murder with your tax dollars.

This has nothing to do with the election, at least for me. I'm no fan of Mitt Romney -- I certainly support NH independence.

There is no reason California, Iowa, Texas, New York, NH, etc, all need to be forced into the same one size fits all "solutions". I find most of what the federal government does to be at best counterproductive and wasteful, and at worst abusive, or even murderous.

I want nothing to do with them.

Yes, Mark, the Democrat politicians like Jan Schmidt (D-Nashua) do not want the press even asking people what they think about this...

Democratic is the proper modifier for a noun like politician, using incorrect English makes your posts appear to come from someone unable to understand the basics of his own language.

And the press isn't asking people what they think about the anti-American drive to secede, Marc is running a poll that can be easily flooded with votes from a single person skewing the results.

And if you haven't been on Patch lately, there seems to be plenty of discussion already. Why not do an article on it, some investigative journalism, instead of this joke?

Okay Seamus, let's talk about it.

If NH secedes how is the population of roughly 1 million going to pay for a military and infrastructure maintenance?

We'll start with those two easy issues. My guess is a -- dun dun DUNNNN -- income tax! Plus an increase in taxes overall.

After we talk about those two then we can talk about education, social security, and what ever Medicare-like system we'll then need to implement.

I know the older population in state who currently benefit from social security and Medicare wouldn't want to give those up. And we know that by all the "Keep You Government Hands Off My Medicare" signs we saw during the election.

Hey, I do not support succession. I voted against it. What I do not support is a Democratic politician telling the press what it should not conduct a poll on...

Just because they name it 'poll' does not mean it is a poll. And I have as much right as anyone here to my opinion on what Patch offers us!

Or have I somehow lost my rights as a citizen Seamus, good grief!

I agree with Jan, the media has no business asking people what their opinions are on such matters. And hopefully in the near future we can get some laws enacted to limit this sort of thing.

Brandon, I understand you have a position on this issue but you don't seem to get my point.

Polls on Patch are the easiest polls to hack on all the Internet

Russ, NH gets less than 70 cents back on each dollar we send to DC. What, you think the money from DC comes from magic? We'd be far wealthier if we just kept the money in-state.

Also, I'm not interested in creating a standing army -- I think the maintenance of a standing army was rightfully viewed as a danger by many early americans, and has been a big mistake. If you want to contribute towards that, that's fine with me, though, I won't stop you.

"Just because they name it 'poll' does not mean it is a poll. And I have as much right as anyone here to my opinion on what Patch offers us! Or have I somehow lost my rights as a citizen Seamus, good grief!"

There is absolutely no evidence that any polling fraud is going on. If it is, prove it. Saying it could happen is not enough. As for your rights, you can say anything you want, but when a politician wants to silence the press, expect people to speak out. Just speaking truth to power...

Actually Ray, the pledge of allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a nationalist socialist (think NAZI). Second, what gives you the right to take someone's private property just because they decide not to be ruled by your government?
And third, because someone is in favor of secession does not make one unamerican, in fact I believe it makes them more American. Lastly, Obama isn't African American, he is a child of a white mother and black father, and I don't give a wit about his race, I believe all people have a heritage which they should celebrate.

"Franklin Pierce":

> Actually Ray, the pledge of allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy,
> a nationalist socialist (think NAZI).

Wherever did you get that idea? A Right Wing mailing you received? Free Republic? Rush? Socialist, yes. A patriot? Apparently. A Nazi? No way!

Well, anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Origins

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist,[3] and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850–1898). The original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism by selling flags to public schools and magazines to students.

Franklin,
No where did I write that I would confiscate anyone's property. The reality is that secessionists, when renouncing their citizenship will no longer be living under the US constitution, which guarantees property rights.

Since secessionist states will no longer be part of the US, and they will certainly not be recognized as sovereign nations, I don't see why the United States military couldn't invade say Texas or New Hampshire and take these places over as territories. Then any confiscating would apply to contraband.

Please don't say that the US cannot invade the sovereignty of another nation, we've done it before, we can do it again. Think Iraq, El Salvador, Phillipines.....other examples?

Once you secessionists renounce the US constitution, why should I give a darn about your rights under the consitution? To me you would be simply another illegal alien.

By the way Franklin,
Obama is African American, just as my friends and relatives like to call themselves Italian Americans because they have Italian ancestry, or decendants of Irish immigrants call themsleves Irish (especially on St Patrick's Day).

In fact Obama is not only African American, he's Irish-American too on his mom's side. Ain't America great?

And you're right, race doesn't matter, we just like to talk about it a lot.

Secessionists don't want to be "ruled by my government", as you say, even though my government, under the US constitution is a model for the rest of the world, so that's their choice.

And your thing about the writer of the pledge being a Nazi, well, that's so funny, I was laughing so hard, tears were rolling down my face. Are you a writer for Saturday Night Live, because no way in heck you can write that with a straight face.

Ray, I'd want to be out from the federal politicians' thumb if Romney were elected also, or if Bush were still president. They're all equally bad in my opinion.

And, yes it is my land, and my house. You don't have a right to steal it from me.

That propaganda they made you say in government school is not the definition of right and wrong. Here's the history of your precious pledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy

Ray, the fact that the US military has invaded other countries and taken land does not make that behavior moral -- and more than it would be moral to march over to your neighbor's with a gun and steal his land yourself.

Do you think that theft, murder, etc is only wrong because the federal government says so? It's ok to steal and murder from non-americans, because they're not "under the constitution"?

What, the definition of right and wrong is just whatever the federal government tells you it is? Do you even have a conscience of your own? Pathetic.

Paul,
I'm just wondering if you an Franklin Pirerce are performance artists? You guys have got to be doing what Colbert does, right?

No one could seriously write the stuff you guys do with a straight face.

You guys are very entertaining, I appaud your performances.

What part of what I said didn't sound serious to you, Ray?

You suggested that invading other people's land and taking their property by force is appropriate behavior, because they're "no longer under the US constitution".

I think such an attitude certainly invites the question of whether you have a conscience of your own, or whether your definition of right and wrong is based solely on the opinion of federal politicians.

The constitution once endorsed slavery, and helping escaped slaves was a federal crime. Do you think that was acceptable, because it was under the constitution, and endorsed by your precious federal politicians?

The question of whether invading people's land and stealing people's stuff is moral behavior is not determined by what's written in any constitution or law.

@Atlant,
http://www.truthinhistory.org/to-pledge-or-not-to-pledge.html
Bellamy was a nationalist and a socialist. The NAZI party was one of national socialists, it isn't a big stretch. Socialist is simply communism to a lesser degree, how is socialist congruent with the principles of our republic? Have you read his cousin's book on socialist utopia?

@Ray
Your understanding our our history is as poor as any I have heard, and your morality is equally suspect. Lets start with first principles,
The states formed the federal government as their agents with certain enumerated powers, the states retained their sovereignty. In sort every state is a country unto itself, free and independent.

Next, governments are instituted among men to protect their rights, our rights are per-existing, not a gift from the government, but as a part of our humanity.

The remainder of the United States could certainly agress, invade a sovereign state. Lincoln did this in the War for Southern Independence. You argument of might makes right is wholly immoral, just as the wars for empire we engage in. A few afghan rebels with AK-47 have defeated the strongest military in the world, do you think that some people in NH could use the same tactics. I would rather die free then live as a slave. Let me leave you with a prayer from Mark Twain,
http://warprayer.org/

Paul,
you ask the question,
"Is it moral to invade a sovereign country and try to steal its stuff?"

I'll let the neoconservatives George W. Bush and Dick Cheney answer that question, in regards to Iraq and its oil.
(Looks like you got me on that one Paul)

I completely agree with your objections to the behavior of George Bush and Dick Cheney, Ray.

I really don't think Canada would want them. They're not into this kind of stuff up there.

Yes David,
You and your 2% of whinny ex Americans should start a revolution.

Canada's worse than the US. The United States is a failed idea. I do not consent to the spending of my money how the federal government has decided to spend my money. Unfortunately we're not colonizing space and you have to live SOMEWHERE and no where on this blue dot is suitable at the moment, the only solution is secession. The American Empire is over.

Keith,
The people are sovereign in New Hampshire, have you read the NH Constitution? Go look up article 10 of the NH Bill of Rights. No one who discusses secession has any intention of leaving their homes. Do you not feel the federal government has usurped states rights?

I'm not a free stater, and I support independence.

By "independence" I don't mean "joining Canada". Apparently that's confusing to you.

No, I don't support the idea that taking people's property by force to finance behaviors they consider immoral -- or threatening to throw people in jail for personal behaviors that harm nobody -- or spying on people -- or bombing/blockading innocent people overseas, etc -- magically becomes appropriate behavior if perpetrated by politicians who were voted for by a 51% of people who came to the polls.

If the "idea" of the US is that any 51% of people effectively own the lives and property of any 49% and can abuse them any way they choose simply because their gang is big enough, no, I do not support that idea in any way shape or form.

I think threatening to harm my neighbors in order to take their property or force them to live a certain way is inappropriate behavior. I respect their right to make their own choices, so long as they don't harm others.

Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner is not liberty -- and two robbers and a victim voting on who gets the victim's wallet doesn't make it anything other than theft.

"The people are sovereign in New Hampshire"

Franklin, do you mean that I'm sovereign?

I don't think I am, that's not what my wife tells me...

Mike,
The unfunded liabilities of the federal govt is $225 trillion. The govt will default thru inflation or void the entitlements. The fed budget has three components, discretionary spender, entitlements and debt service. If we cut all discretionary spending (military, HUD, EPA, DOE, FBI, CIA, EPA, etc,), just entitlement and debt service puts us over $225 billion in the red for the fiscal year. Feel free to chip in my share, if you think we're going to ever pay the debt.

NH pays more to the federal government than it receives, other states are running a huge tab and you think NH should pay for it?

Source:
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

Quitters.

You can escape reality but you can't escape the effects of reality.

Actually, NH pays in 30% more than we get back from the federal government. If anything, they owe us.

So why didn't you wish to secede earlier? Was it because these "tyrannies" occured during administrations of white presidents?

You need to look deep into your soul, Mike.

You may have missed the sarcasm in my post, Of course America is freer than its ever been.

David Frum, you have got to be kidding me, the neocon axis of evil. Do you actually believe that horse crap? Not only is this fool a neocon, he's a Keynesian http://www.businessinsider.com/david-frum-paul-krugman-right-2011-10

It is funny, because I bet these WERE the same people saying "Love It Or Leave It" in 2000 and 2004.

I think it would be good for them to expatriate for a little while. It would be like the Amish Rumspringa. Or more aptly, a 12 year-old running away from home.

They'll take a look around and see the world works outside of there warm cozy bubble, and then come running back with tax money in hand wanting the security and freedoms we have in America.

Mark,
What makes you think secessionist want to leave? Isn't the goal to stay and correct the injustice? I don't recall the southrons leaving the South, it seems to me they stuck it out for what they believed.

Actually, I opposed Bush. I was dismayed to see the anti-war (and pro-civil liberties) protests instantly vanish after Obama was elected in '08. Apparently most of these people didn't really want peace, they just wanted someone with a D next to their name for president.

I am sure many are suddenly supporting secession for partisan reasons. Certainly the timing of those petitions is suspicious -- but please don't assume this describes everyone.

Other governments around the world aren't much better.

Thanks for the spurious ad homonym attack out of the blue. This contributes to the dialog how??

Well spoken, Margaret. I have flagged "Mr. Campbell's reply" as inappropriate. Clearly the level of his discourse is insolent and does any principles he espouses a grave disservice. Grandma used to say that it's a waste of time to argue with a fool, so this'll be my last entry into the discussion of the non-issue of secession. That said, maybe the neo-confederates could set an example of following Mitt Romney's advice from the primary campaign and self-deport if they find things in the Granite State not to their liking. After all, who's making them stay?

Mark, if this article is true they may have already started:
http://bedford-nh.patch.com/articles/frank-szabo-leaves-country#photo-10946410

Has anyone seen Mr. Szabo since?

Margaret,

Could you enlighten me on the policy differences between Obama and Bush, I've now suffered under the two of the most treasonous presidents to occupy the Oval Office. If there is a difference, please enlighten me. Romney would have been no different, so don't go there.

Bush and Obama are not much different, except the letter next to their name. They're both pro-TARP/bailout, pro-war, anti civil liberties, pro-"stimulus", pro-"PATRIOT" act/warrant-less wiretaps, pro-drug war, pro-federal control of healthcare and education, pro-sweetheart FED deals for banks, subsidies for favored corporations and industries, pro-TSA, etc.

At this point it's not much more than a sporting event ... the letter "R" vs the letter "D", and everyone listens to MSNBC or FOX news tell them that the other guy is the antichrist, until they believe it.

You shouldn't have had to put up with Bush's abuse either.

Annie, I believe secessions feel the only t fix things is by leaving a union which no longer represents them, isn't that was a free sovereign people do?

"Franklin Pierce":

I will gladly support you seceding from our United States so long as the area seceding is limited to your property. We can set up a Customs and Immigration check point at the end of your driveway. We'll build a 20-foot-wide deforested area around your property and equip it with the appropriate sensors so that you can't sneak across the now-international border (similar to the American/Canadian border). We'll disconnect any water, sewer, gas, electric, or telephone utilities serving your house since those utilities clearly are franchised only to serve citizens of your former town or state. We'll instruct the fire company not to cross the international frontier.

You see, most of us don't want to leave so you'll have to leave by yourself. Or maybe you can con an immediate neighbor or two into joining you?

I think more localism IS the fix.

There's not going to be real reform as long as near absolute power over 300 million people is concentrated in a few hands in DC -- it's like Christmas morning for every corrupt power hungry individual and special interest.

@Atlant,
Maybe you could post guards, then perhaps it would be just like the Berlin Wall, you could shoot on sight.

You are an incredible statist. Do you believe only government can provide services to people? I assume you don't want to trade with other nations, and go back to the Stone Age, or did you forget that division of labor is the cornerstone to economic progress. I can believe any educated person could be as dim as you present yourself.

> You are an incredible statist. Do you believe only government can
> provide services to people?

Of course not, which is why I mentioned state-franchised private utilities (and was thinking of, e.g., PSNH, Liberty Utilities, and the former Pennichuck Water Works).

But I do have *ZERO TOLERANCE* for people who think they can go it alone without community. Invariably, they turn out to be wrong and an all-too-large fraction of them turn out to be Ted Kaczynski-type folks, living in sheds in the woods and building bombs. One way we form community is by instituting governments (with the permission of the governed). And just because you happen part of the rather-small minority of folks who object to the government we've instituted, that doesn't mean you get to evict that government for the rest of us.

Atlant, I strongly support community, and enjoy working together with others. I desire consensual community action, however -- I don't believe in using coercion to force minorities into going along with the plan of a majority.

NH independence isn't going to happen unless a majority of people support it -- that's just reality.

But, I hope we can come to appreciate that minorities should have rights as well. If a person believes a war, or blockade is immoral -- perhaps even murderous -- should they really be forced to fund it against their will, on threat of jail? Is this a moral way to organize society? I think it is not.

More localism is a big part of the solution, in my opinion. Even government programs tend to work better on a local level. What's more, the rights of minorities are better respected, because they have the opportunity to move to locales that fit their needs. It's also closer to the people -- an average person might succeed at reforming their town government, but they have almost no chance of having any meaningful effect on the federal government.

I think we make a mistake when we conflate "a plurality of people who voted in the election voted for candidate X who wants to do Y" with "'The people' want to do Y'" -- as if it's unanimous, or as if voting for one of two (often bad) options is an accurate referendum on all actions that candidate will take.

"The people" is not some monolithic entity. We should remember that.

Exactly.

I complain that I have to go through a toll just to get to the other end of my own town...

Larry, have you tried to get on an airplane lately? How's the groping working out for you, bet you feel a lot safer knowing some dude just fondled you, and you worry about crossing the state line?

If the US federal government wants to set that up, they certainly can. Lots of people commute from Canada to Detroit, for example -- or to Mexico. It's not the end of the world.

I'd prefer it if they didn't, however -- europe manages without checkpoints between countries.

Maybe, when the time comes, VT and/or Maine would want independence also.

Olenhgal, I don't think we ask for permission, only slaves would do that.

It's definitely up there with this:
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef017742efed55970d-800wi

I guess the revolutionary war was a dumb idea too.

Why should people pay for me to fix my house? Isn't that socialism? Why should the federal government control our sovereign air space, or do you not believe NH is a sovereign state? Did something change since the treaty of paris?

Article 1st:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.

1. I'd much rather keep the money local, for use repairing storm damages. We get cents back on the dollar we send to FEMA -- most ends up in the pockets of upper middle class bureaucrats.

2. What, we can't hire air traffic controllers? Do planes crash into each other in other countries? That's just silly.

3. I'm really not worried about terrorism, to be frank. I think it's mainly a spectre they use to take our money and freedoms. But, if NH wants some form of DHS, I'm sure it could be done far more efficiently locally. Small is beautiful. Giant federal bureaucracies are wasteful.

Well Joel, not to put myself into the right wing crazy camp, but what you suggest is simply the tyranny of the majority, not the rule of law,
http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams146.html

"Unglued" is the hallmark of a certain faction of the Right Wing. Surely anyone reading Patch (or the comments in the Union Leader, etc.) has realized this by now.

It's a shame because New Hampshire is still full of entirely-sane, moderate Republicans. We just can't hear them very well these days for all the din coming from the crazies.

@Atlant,
Oh yes, those moderate republican, and those moderate democrats have slowly eroded our rights and lead us to a fiscal disaster, we must trust them to lead us to the promised land. Doing the same thing expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

And don't forget about the interment camps......

Do you mean the revolutionary war or Lincoln's treason?

Yeah, but again, the people beating the Civil War 2 (Electric Boogaloo) wardrum wouldn't actually be the one's fighting in it. It would be their children. Or more aptly, the children of the poor. The offspring of the rich/powerful would still get their deferments.

Do you believe the people that argue for secession aren't participating? What are the foreign policy differences between the Rs and Ds, nothing. Perhaps you approve of the the president who is judge jury and executioner of anyone he deems a terrorist. Would that include the sovereign citizens who speak for secession?

Do you think if our taxes go up a couple of pennies we will be willing to destroy the country like you separatists? Not a chance, we actually love America.

I hate to bring this up, but it reminds me of the Papp John pizza argument.

He stated that he would have to raise the price of his pizza by 14¢ in order to cover all his employees healthcare coverage under Obamacare.

14¢?! If that's all why didn't he do that without the need for a law?! I would pay an extra 14¢ to know that my fellow citizens would have one less thing to worry about while working at a pizza chain.

It also reminds me about the joke about minimum wage laws from Chris Rock, "If I could pay you less I would! But it's illegal!"

The net result of Obamacare, and govt intrusion in the market is to lower the wages of labor, more people will be pushed to part time, i.e. benefit less employment. The govt will bear the burden and tax more to redistribute the shrinking wealth of the nation until we are all poor and under employed. How you think about that mystical 14cents might change when you are on the receiving end of a low paying part time job without benefits and dependent on the govt for your survival. Then ask yourself how free you are.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/05/expect-fewer-full-time-workers-thanks-to

Very few minimum wage workers work full time to begin with Franklin. I wouldn't expect there will be any noticeable change, except maybe that some of the largest employers like Walmart will no longer be able to put the health care of its workers in the federal governments hands.

Mike, "America" is not the federal government. I love the first, but not the second. Please learn to tell the difference.

And Comcast.

(FYI: You can at least secede from PSNH's power generation services, although you can't easily secede from their power delivery services. Details of this are in the PSNH billing flyer pretty regularly. And people actually do go fully "off-grid", but you'll need a very reliable generator or two or a whopping big investment in batteries and the ongoing maintenance of all of that gear.)

Russ:

> And Comcast.

Well, most folks have access to FairPoint DSL although it's not nearly as fast, especially if you're far from the CO or concentrator. And anyone who's willing to pay ($$$$) could get ultra-fast Fiber to the Home. Or a microwave link. Or WiMax. Heck, even LTE is becoming a reasonable alternative unless you burn a very large amount of bandwidth.

Alternatives are available, it's just that the trade-offs (technical/financial) tend to favor living with good-old Comcast.

As a member of the younger generation -- who will never be able to retire, and who will be paying for all of this -- I agree.

The sooner this happens the better off the state will be. But that would mean politicians would actually need to listen to younger voters. Which, we know, is like trying to explain to a Free Stater why secession is a bad idea...

I'm not in the younger generation but I agree. NH needs to really look at how they get the money to run the state and this "No Tax" Pledge is NONSENSE. Started many years ago by Mel Thompson and it continues! Bad! If we had a state income tax I believe that all those taxes that are paid by NH residents to MA, VT & ME would stay here! They are already paying them, it costs us to school their kids, maintain their roads, etc but their money is going out of the state, The money would stay here. I figure this probably isn't small change!

We will never pay the federal debt, we will default, like Greece. Second, why should you take more from me? Why not lower property taxes by elimination public education, privatize it, let the churches run schools. This was how things used to be, before Horace Mann socialized education.

The more subsidized it is, the less free it is. What is known as "free education" is the least free of all, for it is a state-owned institution; it is socialized education - just like socialized medicine or the socialized post office - and cannot possibly be separated from political control. Why Free Schools Are Not Free,
Frank Chodorov, writer, publisher (1887-1966):

http://lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster191.html

Curly-lady:

> I believe that all those taxes that are paid by NH residents to MA,
> VT & ME would stay here!

Not necessarily; it would depend on the "reciprocity" agreements that would be negotiated. But most reciprocity agreements have you pay your income taxes first to the state you work in, then any excess above that to your home state. So unless NH's income tax went above 5.whatever%, NH would get nothing from NH workers who work across the border in MA, ME, or VT.

"Franklin Pierce"

I've forgotten: Was the real Franklin Pierce a nutbag Libertarian?

Wait, no, he was a Democrat (though that wasn't such a good thing back then since he was a not-so-closeted Confederate):

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

Pam, look at any other state. They'll just use the income tax to take even more of our money.

I think you need to put your money where your mouth is, and reach into your own pocket to help people who need it. I do -- and I donate to charities that have 95% efficiency ratings, rather than government programs, where most of the money ends up in bureacrats' pockets.

Helping others with your own resources is laudable, but there is nothing laudable, honorable or moral about advocating that money be extorted/stolen from your neighbors, by threatening to throw them in jail, in order to fund your personally preferred programs.

Short, sweet and direct. Thank you Charles Hatch.

How gracious in your 'victory'.

I really do want to talk about this, Kevin.

Can you please give me an example of one freedom that the Free Staters, or frustrated American's, have lost in the last 4 years?

I know I'm a frustrated American, and I haven't lost any freedoms. I'm just frustrated that each election we can either choose from a corporatist Republican or a corporatist Democrat on the ballot.

That's one of the most ridiculous, uninformed opinions I've read in quite awhile. Did you ever take a look at the vicious racism, fear-mongering, misogyny, anti-black, anti-Latino, anti-middle class rhetoric by your own party in this election?

Hello Anonymous: I looked pretty closely and didn't see any of the things you mention. Give me some examples please. Even Democrat pundits acknowledge that Democrats ran an entirely negative campaign this time around. Obama knew he could not win otherwise because he has an awful record. Same with the Dems in NH. Did they run on their impressive accomplishments prior to 2010? No. They ran against Christians, Free Staters, O'Brien, Tea Partiers, white men, and any other bogeyman they could use to manipulate non-thinking voters. They brought in billions of union and special interest money to do it. It worked.

Franklin-Colonies do not secede, they declare independence. Which, of course, is just what the colonies did. They formed a confederation and later formalized as a constitutional democratic republic. The original union under the articles of confederation was made "more perfect" by the Constitution. The amendment process furthers the goal of perfecting our Union.

Could you clarify what you mean by saying Jefferson would have let them secede in peace?

Tammy,
If you read the Declaration of Independence, you will see the colonies severed their political ties with the crown, that is secession. The articles of confederation was for a perpetual union of friendship. The Constitution was a ruse to centralize power by Hamilton and the mercantilists. We would be a much freer people without the constitution, remember the States wouldn't agree to it without the bill of rights. If you feel the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments made the union better, we have a vastly different outlook on our history. As far as Jefferson goes, look up the Hartford Convention.

Franklin-Independence and secession are not the same. For example, India did not secede from Great Britain, it became independent. Puerto Rico cannot secede from the United States, but can become a State or become an independent nation, or remain a territory.

The Hartford Convention failed and was the end of the Federalists as a political party. It also framed those who would suggest secession as the extremists they were. It took until the civil war to end such ideology. Until now, that is...As a loyal Unionist, we will stop them again.

Jefferson stated secessionists should be allowed to present their ideas as free speech. He knew reason and patriotism would stop that from happening.

Tammy,
Secession: The action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, esp. a political state: "secession from the union".

Peaceful secession: the Gandhi approach
"The same holds true for India, which seceded from Britain in 1948 under the non-violent but determined leadership of the incomparable Mohandas Gandhi. Again, if one had said in 1940 that India would be independent by 1948, he would have been declared insane."
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/17642

Tammy,
The Federalist discussed secession for 14 years and decided to remain in the union. The Federalists morphed into the Whigs, lead by Henry Clay, the founder of crony capitalism and inspiration for Honest Abe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party

And the reason for that is the News is now a business that needs to make profits, and appease shareholders.

NBC is a joint venture of GE and Comcast. And Fox wears it's corporatism on it's sleeve for all the world to see.

Franklin Pierce (if that is your real name :) ),

There definitely is. But I don't believe that Capitalism has any place in disseminating the news to the public.

The American people gave the airwaves to these corporations with the intent that they would also use them spread facts to the people to make them a more informed electorate. Not Liberal facts, not Democratic facts, but the facts.

With the advent of cable news that just stopped happening.

(Sorry, if my News Corporation comment wasn't the one you were replying to. But the site put this under that one.)

Hi Russ: The decline of morality has contaminated the press too. Journalistic ethics are gone. Obama, again as in 2008 received favorable coverage to Romney via a recent Pew report. But I have a lot of sympathy to your argument about corporate media. I lump the federal government in as part of the gov-corp-media oligarchy. That's the one percent we should be fighting.

As to declining freedoms, the devaluation of the dollar because of federal reserve corporatism, militarism, and welfarism gives me less freedom to buy the things I need. Professionalization, taxes, and bureaucracy costs limit my freedom as a small businessperson. Unlawful surveillance limits my freedom to be who I wish to be. Political correctness/McCarthyism limits my freedom to speak openly without fear of being marginalized by the thought police. The trend-line is bad on all of these fronts. This is an area in which libertarians and progressives seem to disagree. Check out this clip from Stossel that illustrates the relative importance given to the concept of freedom by libertarians and progressives. What does Obama's election mean fro freedom? Obama voters could not answer the question: http://youtu.be/BbP_FMpYyQU

Kevin,

See! I bet if we all talked through things people on both sides of the argument would have a lot in common! These bullet-pointed talking points, and sensationalized stories that we get out out of our media, because they draw in more viewers and ad dollars, are doing a disservice to the country.

As for many of the points you bring up, those were mainly brought to fruition from the previous administrations. I'm really looking at the PATRIOT ACT that dissolved most of those freedoms. And I really abhor all those double-speak Orwellian laws that have been passed in the past decade (Clear Skys, No Child Left Behind, and to a lesser extent Medicare Part D).

I'm listening to the clip now that you posted, but again I can't take it too seriously. Mainly because of Stossel and the CATO Institute - and the stink of corporate money that emanate from them like green squiggly lines in a cartoon.

I also think the question they're trying to answer is way too obtuse. What would a Romney election win mean for freedom too? Romney supporters would have difficulty answering that in the little sound bites that they showed. I also don't have confidence that they didn't selectively edit that piece too. That just comes down to me not trusting what's spoon-fed to me by that corporate media (Stossel) and these big money interest groups (CATO).

One point you made that I don't agree with though is the Thought Police/Political Correctness one that you made. You still have the freedom to say what ever you want, whenever you want, and wehere ever you want.

And people have the freedom to disagree with you, or call you out. In the most extreme case, people have the freedom to call the President any derogatory name in the book that they like. I have the freedom to challenge them on that, mock them for that, and subsequently not take any of their other arguments seriously. There are quiet a few countries where you CAN'T do that at all.

I plan on starting a business in the next 5 years or so, so I'm curious as to which specific laws you're referring to and how they're limiting a business-owners freedom. Because I would definitely like to get those changed if they limiting freedoms, and not just putting a hinderance on upping profits by a few percentage points.

There are fundamental underpinnings to most of the points that you brought up and they can all be traced backed to big money being pumped into to our government from interest groups on both sides. Which I think we all can agree on.

Wow, sorry this ending up being this long and in two parts (there's a character limit which is stifling my freedom of speech!), but these are things that we need to talk about. And in long-form, not just sound bites and pull-quotes.

Cheers!

Russ,
Do you believe the government propaganda? A truly free market, like the Internet offers choices.

P.S. I too am a fan of Mencken. He was the Stewart/Colbert of his time, because it usually takes a satirist to point out ll the absurdities of the ruling class.

Russ-I agree. Satirists are the bane of ideologues. There is more truth to be found there, than in official or ideological venues. It is sad that we sometimes have to depend on them for actual journalism.

Kevin-Really? You have outed yourself as a bigot with such rhetoric.(living while white)

McCarthy was not a progressive. You are the one promoting the absurdities, not progressives, today. By you, I mean those who promote secession and a form of anarchy and try to define it as freedom or liberty. I think you know better.

I do not disagree with much of your criticism of mainstream media, today. I only disagree with what you believe the agenda to be.

Tammy: The bigots are on the left. I can't tell you how many episodes of reverse racism I have endured in my life as someone working in the human services field. Entire textbooks are now written to satisfy leftist racist propaganda. Obama outed himself as a racist by using the phrase, "typical white person" during the first campaign. That comment should have disqualified him from consideration but it did not because he was protected by the race mongering leftists in the media and the Democratic Party. We are in the midst of the Benghazi incident during which Republicans are rightly criticizing Ambassador Rice for lying to protect Obama or carrying water for Obama. She should be removed from her post for such a transgression against the American people. Instead, the Democrats trot out a bunch of African-American Congresspeople, women to accuse the criticizers of racism against Rice, even though she is essentially a criminal. It is a chicken-shit way of being in the world but it does not stop these sociopaths because it works.

"Living While White?" Excuse me?

Rick,
How does it feel to redistribute your wealth so texans can live large on your dime? Guess you never walked up the food chain to see that you are paying for Texas federal largesse. Not to worry tho, the FED will just print more 'wealth'.

How about focusing your energies on those issues if you care about them? Instead of trying to burn the place down, how about being a participant of a democracy? Vote.

Laurie,
I love my country too, I don't love my government, lets not conflate the two. It is my belief the federal government acts outside the law, so much so that it is irreparable, I cannot speak for anyone but myself, I will not leave my country (New Hampshire), this is the relationship I cherish. As far as the nation, it is for the people of the several states to chart their own course. As a free person, I don't ask permission from government to respect my rights,...
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ..."

http://www.uni-svishtov.bg/dialog/2007/4.07.WB.pdf

Why would you marry the federal government? That sounds like a very, very unhealthy relationship.

Have at it, but please don't force me into it as well. I'm not into threesomes with organizations that murder innocent people overseas on a regular basis, using extorted money.

Now, I do care very deeply about the country, and the best possible thing for it would be to redistribute power back to the people themselves, and local communities, and divest it from the one central location in DC.

Thank you Kevin for your belief in the right of secession, people should not be so quick to dismiss secession or nullification.

ForThePeople,
I happen to know several 'free staters', none are loonies. One ran for sheriff, another is very involved in protecting your property rights. I presume you have no proof of the Paulbots, unless you read it in some Mark Levin diatribe. Perhaps we have just met different sorts of people in those movements. I choose not to leave, I guess you'll just have to deal with that. You have no facts to back up your assumptions, it's simple to slander, if you say it often enough, people may believe you, isn't that how Goebbels controlled the Germans?
Heavens if anyone discusses welfarism and warfarism or the power of the federal government to run roughshod over our rights. When you realize the 'war on terror' is really a war on you, it may be too late.
We can't talk about those loonie libertarians with their non-aggression principle when we are killing people half way around the world, destabilizing our country and making them all hate us.
Or perhaps we should talk about Benghazi, where your Messiah is funneling chemical weapons to the Syrian Resistance, well at least until the Russians put their foot down and had their proxy fighters put an end to it. There is not a whit of difference between Bush and Obama, they do what their overlords tell them.
We can talk of the endless Middle East wars without discussing Petrodollar hegemity can we?
How unhinged was that?

Quite unhinged. I know some free staters. My feelings towards these folks come from experience. What 'assumptions' do you disagree with, specifically? You didn't even address what I wrote without immediately jumping into that Nazi Germany references and slanted religious metaphors. Which, by the way, is exactly what the people I know who are part of that movement do! It must be part of your programming, part of your groupthink. Do you all have a script you read off of?

ForThePeople,
Actually, I thought I addressed your issues perfectly, you slandered people as Paulbots and loonies without evidence, isn't this 'groupthink'? My reference to Goebbels was point on, if you repeat a lie often enough, then people might believe it, you made statements as if they were facts without supporting evidence, so who has the talking points?
Finally, you solution to the secession movement is to expect people to leave, so you totally miss the point, secession is about restoring our rights and lawful governance, you know consent of the people and all that. We have a congress and court which has delegated all of its power to the executive branch, we have presidents who routinely act outside of the law. We have the Federal Reserve now buying MBSs (your mortgage) by writing checks out of thin air. So tell me everything is fine.

"One ran for sheriff" Frank Szabo?
And he is your example of someone who ISN'T a loonie?

This is what it means:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+groupthink%3F

I can just see the hysteria as you pull out your favorite hyperbole, tossing in World War 2, the Federal Reserve, and the other favorite bogeymen hiding in the libertarian closet. Do you realize this is cookie-cutter Free State Project behavior and even wording?

Also, is Frank Szabo the sheriff you're speaking of? :-)

@ForThePeople,
Do you believe the Federal Reserve should establish monetary policy in the US? Do you think a few academics, political appointees, and bankers know how to run an economy better then all the people that exchange goods and services in the marketplace? Why is the dollar today only worth pennies what it was worth before the creation of the FED? Do you understand credit expansion and fractional reserve banking?
I find it interesting when a liberal believes everyone but liberals is enveloped by groupthink. Most people believe liberals, in their collectivist nation are the largest population of groupthink.

Don't want to answer that Sheriff question? :-)

No free staters are loonies? The one that ran for sheriff before he ran for South America thought it was okay to shoot people he didn't agree with. One that was in the legislature, Andrew Manuse, decided it would be okay for felons to carry handguns - he wrote a bill. He also thinks it's a good idea to allow firearms on playgrounds. In fact, he voted for a bill that would take away the right of institutions to prohibit firearms from public places.
If these people aren't lunatics, it's time to redefine the word.

I know lots of freestaters, and the vast majority are well reasoned, intelligent, caring people. In a sense, we're all free-staters -- this is the "live free or die" state after all.

I am no fan of Frank Szabo, however, for reasons outlined here.

I do support Manuse's bill, however. If a person has ill intent, they're going to bring a gun regardless of the law. Having law abiding people armed (or at least the chance of it), makes everyone safer, in my opinion.

And, while "felon" is a scary word, people can become felons for selling raw milk, growing pot for personal use, importing goods with the wrong kind of wrapper, or even filling out paperwork wrong -- here's one of many books on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229.

If the law prohibited violent felons from owning guns, it would make a lot more sense. Ultimately though, if a person is really an imminent danger, they shouldn't be out of jail in the first place. If a person wants to get a gun and harm others, a law about owning firearms isn't going to stop them.

1. Yes

2. There's no way to predict that, though certainly in many past cases of independence, the new countries were recognized internationally. In 1900 there were 57 countries in the world -- in 2000, there were 192. I think this is a positive trend, since this allows individuals and small communities to have more control over the kind of society they live in.

3. I'd hope we'd have protections for individual rights and personal liberties even more robust than those in the US constitution. The NH state constitution is already a good start.

4. That's a question the US federal government would have to answer. I'd hope they'd treat them like workers who commute from Canada or Mexico, of which there are many. Actually, I'd hope they'd have much more liberal (by which I mean "free") immigration and labor policies than they do now, but they don't tend to call me for advice ...

5. Why doesn't the US federal government invade Canada, or Mexico? They'd certainly win. I'd hope they'd leave NH (or any independent state) alone for the same reason: It'd be politically extremely unpopular to act aggressively against them. People have friends and neighbors all over the US. I certainly hope most americans wouldn't be so bloodthirsty as to roll in tanks against people who just want to leave in peace. I'd also hope the military would refuse such orders, if given.

Bravo!!

Another great performance Paul. I laughed myself off the chair.

Why would we ever invade Mexico or Canada, when we have make these countries do our bidding, they are our puppets. Are you sure you would want to live in a New Hampshire that was the puppet of the USA?

While I certainly do think the US federal government exercises undue influence over the internal affairs of other nations, perhaps including mexico and canada, I wouldn't describe them as "puppets".

That said, if US hegemony is as iron-fisted as you suggest, that just makes me want out all the more. I do not want my tax dollars going to fund such thuggery.

FINALLY someone who actually read the constitution.

Mike,
do you not recognize performance art when you see it? Steven Colbert has nothing on these guys. These guys are hilarious.

Unfortunately, they are quite serious Ray. I know some of these Free staters, and they are very binary thinking people. They do some weird issue algebra in their minds, where this means this, and that means that, the false equivalency is created and the fantasy is born. Issues do not have shades of gray, mitigating circumstances, or anything approaching complexity. Their mental reference point is 300 years old, which makes it very friendly to their kind of mindset, which wants to create these connections. It also makes it hard to shake, because there is limited discovery on what happened 300 years ago by definition. So they feel safe in their fantasy, creating these weird connections.

The next step is alienating other people, which is pleasurable to them. They like being different, they like feeling above society, and they love nothing more than to share that with everyone else. This secession talk is part of that sickness they have. It reminds me of fantasy prone personalities mixed with severe anxiety, where they can barely move without feeling anxiety over society itself. Are they participating? Are they part of the problem? It drives them crazy.

there is alway's something wrong with people who disagree with you socialist's alot like europe 60 or 70 years ago.

FTP, a lot of this post is unintelligible. The few descriptions which are intelligible are almost exactly opposite to the freestaters I know -- who are intelligent, proactive in a positive way, and simply value localism and a society based on mutual cooperation rather than force.

Do you have any examples of anything you're saying?

I object strongly to most of the behaviors of the federal government. The sanctions in Iraq, for example, were admitted by Sec. State Madaline Albright to have killed over 500,000 children. Naturally, I strongly object to being forced to fund these kinds of behaviors, and want out. How does this equate to sickness in your mind?

You were given examples: the sheriff, state rep who wanted felons to have guns, and Franklin raving about World War II Nazis in trying to make some point. Which is what I'm talking about when I mention false equivalencies and issue algebra. If you can't follow along, I understand, because your leanings are along the same lines.

Look at what you just wrote about Madeline Albright. What does that have to do with anything? It's a random statement that you provided no references for, and for two, it brings us back to the same problem as somehow anyone who lives in America is guilty of all American atrocities. It's just not true. When we have issues we don't agree with, we vote. If you run away each and every time you have a problem, you're never going to have a community which can accomplish truly great things, such as medical research, food aid, and medical aid around the globe. Nothing is all good nor all bad; there are only shades of gray. My objection to you and your ilk is this inability to participate, noisy malcontent that results in stunts like this one (secession), and your penchant for ruining things for everybody else. I could go on.

FTP, Szabo's opinion on abortion is one I (and most pro-liberty people I know, by the way), strongly disagree with. He doesn't fit your description, however (those parts of it I could understand). It sounds like you've invented some sort of straw man in your own mind.

And again, I think you're reacting to the fact that "felon" is a scary word, and not really understanding the issue. People are convicted of felonies for growing a few pot plants for personal use in their basement, and on that basis banned from owning firearms for life. This is not a just outcome.

continued ...

I don't think "Raving about nazis in ww2 trying to make some point" is a fair assessment of what Franklin said. Why not listen, and address the substance of an argument? You seem to be reacting viscerally and emotionally rather than rationally.

Bellamy was a national socialist, who favored control of virtually all aspects of society by a centralized government.

He was also a racist, writing, for example, in an 1897 edition of The illustrated American, "A democracy like ours cannot afford to throw itself open to the world, where every man is a lawmaker, every dull-witted or fanatical immigrant admitted to our citizenship is a bane to the commonwealth; where all classes of society merge insensibly into one another. Every alien immigrant of inferior race may bring corruption to the stock. There are races more or less akin to our own whom we may admit freely and get nothing but the infusion of their wholesome blood. But there are other races which we cannot assimilate without a lowering of our racial standard"

So, he shares big parts of his political philosophy with the nazis, and the name (nazi means "National Socialist"). Here's what Bellamy's original salute looked like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute ... before the same salute was adopted by (you guessed it) the german national socialists.

You can certainly disagree with Franklin, but I think to unthinkingly dismiss him as "crazy" says more about you than he.

continued (again) ...

What I wrote about Madaline albright has a whole lot to do with the reason I want nothing to do with the federal government. Maybe you're perfectly comfortable with the product of your labor being used to kill 500,000 children, but I am not.

Here's a reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

I consider this murder. I am not comfortable funding it, nor the aggressive wars/blockades that continue to this day. Yet, if I refuse to fund it, I go to jail.

You euphamize this by calling it "community", but it's not. Community is built when people work and trade together voluntarily. People threatening to send men with guns to each other's houses in order to extort their property from them and use it to bomb people is not "community" -- quite the opposite.

I don't know how you imagine that I have a problem with medical research, or food and medical aid. I personally donate to support all of these efforts.

Yes, some things are bad. Murdering 500,000 children is bad. If you would like to fund it, feel free, but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop taking my money for these sorts of purposes, by threatening me with jail, and having the audacity to call it "community".

What am I ruining? I would give my left arm to be out from under their thumb, and I assure you it's no stunt.

Your defense of Franklin bringing up Goebbels is ridiculous. It had nothing to do with Bellamy. He brought it up to make a point that if people repeat something often enough, it is believed. But the reason he brings up this guy is purely because World War II is considered the ultimate shock value for every argument. Godwin's law, are you familiar with it?

Getting a felony for marijuana is hard to do unless you are dealing or you fancy yourself a horticulturist specializing in pot. I'm well aware of the feelings for marijuana amongst The Free State Project, and I don't have any opinions either way if people want to smoke up. However, if you become a felon, that's on you, and you lose your right to carry firearms. Defending that only proves my point of the craziness amongst the free staters.

In regards to the sheriff, threatening to kill people who are getting abortions is insane. Unequivocally insane. Franklin bringing up this guy as some kind of paragon is insane.

Finally, I don't know why you are bringing up Bellamy. I don't care. I'm not making any Bellamy opinions or statements.

Oh, I didn't notice his reference to Goebbels. It's true, that if you repeat something often enough people tend to believe it, and Goebbels is the source of that quote. Why is that controversial? I certainly don't think that makes him crazy.

ctd ...
I don't have any feelings for marijuana. I've never used it, and never intend to.

But, I'm capable of empathy for people in different circumstances than myself. See, that's part of the actual meaning of the word "community" that you keep throwing around.

Even people who are addicted need medical help and support -- same as the people addicted to alcohol or cigarettes. Locking a person in jail for personal vices, who has harmed nobody but themselves, is not appropriate (or expedient) behavior.

And: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/growing-marijuana.html

I'll help you out. "Growing marijuana is a felony under Federal law."

Here's another example: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/alobsterstail.htm

So, my question to you: Do you think Diane should be banned from ever owning a firearm, because she wrapped lobsters incorrectly? That is, if such a person were to go buy a firearm, and have it in their possession, but harm nobody, would you advocate that police go bust down their door and drag them to prison?

continued ...

In Szebo's opinion, being elected sheriff carried the obligation to protect innocent persons, and since he believes fetuses are persons, he considered them to be included in the definition.

He's certainly not an insane person, but I (and virtually everyone else I know) agree he's completely wrong on this, and withdrew support for him immediately upon hearing of this position. Being sheriff doesn't entitle you to create laws, which defining "person" in this way effectively does.

I'm not sure why Franklin used him as an example ... he'd be pretty much at the bottom of my list.

I brought up Bellamy because I thought Franklin's discussion of Bellamy was what you referring to with your reference to him "Raving about nazis in ww2 trying to make some point". I think the fact that this is how you described his brief reference to Goebbels says quite a bit about the color of the lenses you're looking through ...

Your story about lobster tails didn't quite add up. Look at this:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2000/November/647enrd.htm

It's not just about lobster tails. But again, that's what I'm talking about, these binary opinions, these narrow viewpoints, and completely unrelated stories that you all use to make your points. I mean really, lobster tails? I can just picture you regaling your fellow libertarians with fanciful stories about the government oppressing lobster tail salespeople over a pint.

And my objection to World War II comparisons is that on the Internet, Godwin's law. Using the extreme case to make any point- to shock people, to shame people, to make this agreement impossible because who wants to agree with Nazis?- that's the issue. And that's the tactic. Make the topic as radioactive as possible to make your point. It's not right.

It's not about blame. I do not want to be forced to contribute my own money to this kind of action. It's not "an event that occurred in" the country, it's an ongoing policy that I am personally forced to finance, and I object to it.

Do you somehow find my objection unreasonable?

Suppose a roving gang, or mafia, stole from you on a regular basis, and then used the money to kill children. Would you object? I'm guessing yes. Would that mean you consider it your fault? No, not really. You were the victim.

Suppose they labeled themselves "government XYZ". Would you still object?

Now suppose they held elections, and a bunch of people, most of whom you don't know, elected the chief thug. Would you still object? I do.

I don't go to south America for at least two reasons:
1. The governments there are often just as bad.
2. This is my home, and I care deeply about it. I'm not going to abandon my friends and neighbors, nor the victims of the US federal government's behavior overseas, to their fates.

ctd ...

Suppose two muggers steal the wallet of a third person. Do you consider this wrong behavior?

Suppose they hold a vote first. Two to one, the motion to take the third person's wallet and distribute it among the first two passes. Does their behavior now become ok?

"Democracy" is a euphemism for the idea that 51% of any group have the right to abuse 49% any way they choose. It's the tyranny of the majority. There's nothing good about this notion.

Respect for individual rights is what is laudable.

I think most of us live by a pretty decent moral code, in our private lives. Most of us do not steal, murder, etc, as individuals. Most of us would view it as outrageous behavior, to go threaten to harm a neighbor in order to try to force them to eat healthier, or live in a way we'd prefer -- or take their money for our own use.

Yet, we imagine that when we collectivize these behaviors, it's ok. Two people threatening to kidnap one person if they eat unhealthy food is a crime. Two million threatening one million is a "law".

Two people forcing one person to kill someone else is murder, and enslavement -- both crimes. Two million forcing one million to do the same is a "draft".

Blowing up a village to get one bad guy is "reckless homicide" ... unless you're a government, and then it's "collateral damage".

etc.

We suffer from a giant moral blind spot, in my opinion, which I think this is the root source of a big part of the evil and aggression in the world.

I support community. I don't support this kind of aggressive behavior -- especially on a federal level.

But roving gangs are not countries- the tested mettle, institution, and foundation of millions of people. These are not equivalent.

2 muggers are not equivalent to millions of people. False equivalency.

And as far as the 51% and a 49%, this is part of the community contract. Otherwise everyone could just pick and choose what laws they follow, sometimes to the detriment of others. Sometimes you get your way, and sometimes you don't. It doesn't make everything your fault. Your position in the democracy is to vote, participate, make your voice heard, and if you don't get your way, you have three choices: learn to live with it, try again, or follow Frank to South America.

One of those choices cannot be hijacking the territory of the United States of America through secession.

"2 muggers are not equivalent to millions of people. False equivalency."

So, you're saying that for two million people to mug one million would be moral, but not for two people to mug one. Am I understanding you correctly?

"And as far as the 51% and a 49%, this is part of the community contract."

What contract? I didn't sign anything.

"It doesn't make everything your fault."

It's not that it's my fault, it's that I'm trying to stop the abuse. I doubt many would contribute to a blockade on Iraqi civilians, or to fund torture or secret prisons, on a voluntary basis. I want to make the world a better place, don't you?

"Otherwise everyone could just pick and choose what laws they follow, sometimes to the detriment of others."

It used to be a federal crime to help escaped slaves. Would you support throwing people in jail, like Harriet Tubman, who broke these laws?

FTP, there is such a thing as right and wrong. Slavery was not ok, even when it was legal, and helping slaves escape was not wrong, even when it was illegal.

I think, frankly, that you make a big mistake when you define "right" and "wrong" as "whatever most people think" or "whatever most politicians think".

"One of those choices cannot be hijacking the territory of the United States of America through secession."

Tell me, who owns my land? Who owns the land of NH? Do you think the federal government owns it? If so, I'd really like to learn how exactly you think they came to acquire it.

We are not going to get very far in a discussion if you start making things up, such as implying I do not have a concept of right and wrong, or implying that I believe the majority makes right. I didn't say that at all. I also didn't make a single mention of morals. Not once. Do you want to discuss this or not?

My objection to your mugging analogy is that first, the idea of a mugging, and second that somehow a street mugging can be equivalent to the tested mettle and sacrifice of a republic. They are not the same. One of them has the legitimacy of community decision, and the other is the independent decision of a couple people. If you can get millions of people to agree on something, it means more than 2 people, am I right? If you can get millions of people to agree over hundreds of years based on shared sacrifice, is that the same as two people doing a mugging? They are not the same.

I think that "stopping abuse" is a worthy cause, and I support that within the boundaries of the law. You do that at the ballot box, you do that through free-speech laws, you do that through participation in our democracy using the tools that are given. I support peaceful expression.

Bringing up slavery goes back to what Franklin was doing bringing up World War II. You bring up these extreme examples that have very specific circumstances beyond what we are talking about here. You make the topic so radioactive that you can't disagree without becoming one of your libertarian bogeymen. I don't understand why you and the free staters cannot debate a topic within the parameters of the topic itself. If you want to talk about slavery, you're going to need to do a much better job of correlating what you're trying to say, because I'm not going to be baited into some extreme metaphor that is so far off what we are talking about.

And as far as who owns your land, you don't. It's the property of the United States of America, as territory purchased, conquered, and annexed. Debating the "morals" of this is fine and all, but there's no question about it.

what just happened to the former soviet union?.