As much as O"Brien is spending on his quest!

Job creation does not fall within the purview of a constitutionally limited government.

Just one of many Soros-funded groups that are ruining our wonderful New Hampshire.

Surely you have links to all of this?

You know, ones that provide *ACTUAL, COMPLETE QUOTES* from the folks you're paraphrasing?

@Atlant: Why don't you just Google "zandra hawkins white pride" and you'll come up with two large articles about it at least.

Here is more for you @Atlant http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2010/03/28/bogus-press-release-an-example-of-larger-problem/

Seems Susan The was right there with them too... smearing people for no reason. http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2010/03/23/buckley-sullivan-dirty-tricks-tag-team/

ObserverNH:

Both of your links are "hearsay".

Where's the link to something Zandra said, in here own words, right on a website that she has some control over?

The Right commonly makes up s**t about what we on the Left "said".

Mr. Atlant,

Ahhh "hearsay"

Kinda like your recent declaration that you know "someone" who works in a hospital who "told" you that hospitals have been laying off employees for "years" and its not because of the ACA

umm Hill?

Hospitals laid off people because of the last Legislature raided their payments for the uninsured... at least 500 in Nashua

@Atlant Schmidt IT WAS A PRESS RELEASE DUH!!!! LOL The press release is contained in the articles which of course you failed to read.

> They are the ones fighting to keep this state free, we should be thanking them.

Aside from being asked to participate in our modern civil society, what freedoms exactly are these folks "fighting" for? And just how far will they take the fight?

Atlant, since the free state project has no elected leadership or official structure, each member can fight for which freedoms he or she chooses in which ever way they see fit.
Many liberals love to point out the extreme examples and attempt to claim they represent ALL of the FSP. Some have started groups to legalize marijuana. Others simply fight against new laws that limit freedoms (look up the Liberty Ratings where every single bill is reviewed each year and rated on whether it either gives or takes away personal freedom). Some others yet find obscure laws and protest against them in an attempt to get people to start thinking that instead of pushing new laws maybe we need to review the laws we already have.
Whether you agree with their tactics or not, why is pushing for more personal freedom and liberty a bad thing?
The only specific example given above is calling out the women fighting for topless equality. If it's so horrible for a woman to be allowed to be topless outdoors in front of children, is it better for a guy in drag to parade himself down the street? Or how about a horribly obese man to walk around a beach in a speedo, hardly covering himself (this is shown during prime time TV in a currently airing commercial)? The FSP asks where is the line and does it make sense where it is.

Well said and I agree. I'm not a "Free State Project" member but support the idea 100%...

"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government, to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world."

Oh the horror...

This statement IS "The New Hampshire Way"... It's the progressives the want the hostile takeover of the State... Tax, Spend, Ban, Regulate, Control is all they know how to do..

I've always suggested Somalia. No functioning government but plenty of guns -- should be ideal for the average Free Stater!

Alant, the multi-decade long (and now "successful") effort by the US govt to install a central govt they approve of in Somalia might be something you would look up, before you embarrass yourself further.

Why not Arizona, they have only been a state for a hundred years and haven't quite gotten a hang of it yet.

Sounds like Bob is on the Somalia visitors bureau.
Tell us how great Somalia's central government is Bob.

Bob:

(For the purposes of our discussion) it is unimportant how Somalia came to be the way it is. It is the fact that *IS* the way it is which ought to make it Heaven-on-Earth for Libertarian a**holes. In Somalia, they can probably even defend their rights with firearms! Big ones! Unregulated ones!

Alant, you should do yourself a favor and read up on what is going on in Somalia now. What you say could have been true 12 years ago, but not now. The "stateless" period only lasted about 10 years, and is long since over.

Bob:

The BBC, as of less than a year ago, disagrees with you:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16866913

"Somalia has not had a functioning central government for more than 20
years and has been racked by fighting between militias."

The Australian government disagrees with you as of *RIGHT NOW*:

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Somalia

o We strongly advise you not to travel to any part of Somalia because of armed conflict, the ongoing very high threat of terrorist attack and dangerous levels of violent crime, including kidnapping.

o If you are in Somalia, we strongly urge you to leave if it is safe to do so.
Foreigners, including Australians, face an ongoing very high threat of kidnapping in Somalia and are actively targeted by kidnappers. Western aid workers, journalists and religious representatives have all been targeted by kidnappers.

o Reports of mid January 2013 indicate that militants may be planning to abduct foreigners in Hargeisa, Somaliland.

o There is an ongoing very high threat of terrorist attack in Somalia. Westerners have been targeted and killed in terrorist attacks throughout the country, including the capital Mogadishu.

(much more)

o There is no effective police force in Somalia and lawlessness, violent crime, banditry and looting are common.

(more)

Atlant, do yourself, and everyone else, a favor and go to Google News, do a search for "Somalia", and just read the headlines.

"Government charges woman..."
"Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman (right) meets with Somali Prime Minister Abdi Farah Shirdon..."

Fascinating that "No functioning government", as you say, would have a "Prime Minister". I think it's fascinating, don't you Atlant?

Bob:

> Fascinating that "No functioning government", as you say, would have a
> "Prime Minister". I think it's fascinating, don't you Atlant?

The fact that you can't distinguish "having a government" from "having a functioning government" doubtless explains a lot about why you vote for the Right. The Right very much desires that America *NOT HAVE* a "functioning government".

Somalia, is that all you've got.

http://c4ss.org/content/2859

@Atlant, pointing to Somalia as a typical example of anarchy is about as instructive as pointing to the Soviet Union as a typical example of government. BTW, funny coincidence that your handle is the first word of the title "Atlas Shrugged" in Russian--Атлант расправил плечи.

You seem to have the FSP folks confused with Conservatives. I suggest you learn something about the subject before posting again.

To quote Glen Beck, who had himself dressed in a Soviet Communist Army uniform, on the cover of one of his books, is a joke. The only reason why he's creating this utopia for ultra conservatives, is because he doesn't want to pay any taxes PERIOD.

Let's get it out in the open, and something that Bob, and other conservatives don't want to admit. They want NO GOVERNMENT, NO TAXES PERIOD. This stupid argument, and obfuscation of their ulterior motives of their platform. So they enjoy bringing into their tent, groups who are anti-government under their tent. Then the drape it into some form of patriotism, that if you aren't with us, you aren't a patriotic citizen of this country."

If I am wrong, then how come the GOP elects a woman with a sizeable tax lien on her home? I am sure she doesn't like taxes, so she doesn't pay them. So I rest my case...

If you're paying attention to the news, both NH Republicans and NH Democrats are fighting over how to change the state. Is there anybody happy with the status quo? Free-staters are libertarians, who generally agree 70% with conservatives and 20% with progressives. Libertarians value liberty, and NH is the freest state--what's so hard to understand about that?

I guess you missed the "101 Reasons To Move To New Hampshire".

So, you think having a state with a maximum role of the protection of "life, liberty and property" is somehow destructive. Ok, so get over the hyperbole and let's discuss it.

What else do you believe govt must provide?

I guess you didn't read what I wrote...

And yes - I do believe that we are a community of people who support each other and plan for the healthy future of our state and our country. We build bridges not so we can take your money but so the business on the other side of that river can flourish and supply us with their goods and in doing so buy the material they need and support other businesses and the jobs they bring.

We aren't each little islands Bob, we are not the gulch, and if you someday fall on hard times NH should be ready to help you back up... not tell you to go pound sand.

I'm sorry, I was unable to distinguish through the metaphors.

What services do you think the state should provide?

The FSP people think that they are "Libertarians" but in reality, they advocate feudalism. They want all the advantages a free society has to offer, but they want none of the obligations required to maintain a free society.
...

Bob, start by looking at the state budget.

Ray Guarino, I thank you. Unlike Jan Schmidt, you seem capable of actually stating your objections rather than just spewing generalities.

I'm fascinated, really. I would very much like to know how you conclude that Free Staters advocate Feudalism? Also, how are they trying to avoid obligations of maintaining a free society?

I mean, opposing the ever-greater growing of the state would seem to me to be the first obligation to even start trying to maintain a "free society". So obviously I'm missing something, I hope you can enlighten me.

Jan, there is nothing in the budget that gives me any idea of the programs you support.

That is, unless you are trying to say that every single thing in the New Hampshire state budget is something you think the state should provide. Is that what you meant?

And if so, does that mean you do not believe the state should do anything else (not already listed)?

The Free State Project moved here specifically to form a voting block for many reasons, including the pretense that New Hampshire most approximated their value system. Actually, I believe they did it because of how easy it is to control our state legislature. We do not fund our government legislature appropriately, and we get what we pay for. As has been said, our representatives are the rich, retired, and business representatives looking out for their own interests (you think the Sanborn's actually give a damn? Ha.).

To the extent that the Free State Project wants marijuana rights, this seems rather shortsighted. If you move across the country to smoke weed… why not just go to Canada? No, there is a special brand of lunacy with these folks, a sort of hyper selfishness that would seek to destroy the safety net that protects the vulnerable, dismantle education, and tear down societal benefits. Ironically, their cabin in the woods mentality is expressed using the tools of society itself, a hypocritical posture if there ever was one.

"ForThePeople", have you ever given thought (yes, I know, a long shot) to the fact that not every participant in the FSP smokes pot? Or even a majority?

Here's a simple fact: Prohibition doesn't work. Being against prohibition does not require being in favor of, or utilizing, any of the supposedly prohibited items. It is possible to be against prohibition ITSELF. This is so simple, even you might grasp it.

All this mischaracterization...some people here desperately need to read Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind", or at least watch his TED talk. There is little in the libertarian agenda that is not found in the platforms of one of the two major parties, or that has not been common in the USA's past (e.g. a return to a commodity-backed currency). None of it is "extreme". Most libertarians would be completely content with the US simply returning to a pre-FDR interpretation of the US Constitution.