18 votes

Free State Project participants have 101 reasons to move to N.H.

By Henry Metz and Dan Moberger | Union Leader

Rep. Mark Warden is one of those people. A citizen of the Granite State since 2007, Warden recently won election to a second term in the state Legislature, where he represents Goffstown, Weare and Deering.

“I moved here from Las Vegas, Nev.,” said Warden, a real estate agent. “I was single – I still am – and so it was fairly easy for me to just pick up and leave. I was involved in new home construction in Nevada, and I was getting more and more interested in becoming an activist. Overall, I love it here. The winters are cold, but the scenery is beautiful.”

Warden, like many other Free State participants, found that the scenery wasn’t the only thing that attracted him to New Hampshire. He left Nevada for many reasons, not the least of which was New Hampshire’s tax policies – specifically, the lack of an income and sales tax, as well as no capital gains tax.

Continue...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

+ 1

Thanks for posting.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I thought about it until I looked at how close New York

and all the east coast "weather problems" that seem to take out entire cities more and more these days.

its almost like the weather is wiping people out on purpose.

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

I am making the move in slow motion

I got a place and am putting in a farm. Heading up there tonight to finish up some more of the inside. I should have greenhouse and crops going this spring.

Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com

If you don't mind me asking

which county are you putting the farm in?

I ask because I was thinking of getting land up in Coos county, since land seems cheapest there.

Got a place in Rockingham county, but it's more for renting out. Too small for a proper homestead.

A signature used to be here!

There are some towns in Grafton County

That still do not have zoning ... I am in one of them.

Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com

Thanks

I'm almost never up in that part of the state except for when I go to North Conway, which isn't often these days.

Frankly, the people in this area are basically trailer trash. I mean, how many broken vehicles on a lawn is enough? Parts of southern NH feel like it's taking on some sort of weird Metro Boston/Appalachia atmosphere, and I don't like it.

Oh well, there's always Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah...

A signature used to be here!

While at one time I did think

While at one time I did think very briefly about this; I happened to decide it was a hypocritical idea.

Libertarians and AnCaps who are pushing this idea, say that they don't believe in the use of Force; they(libertarians and AnCaps) say that education is the way to bring about the world we want.

My question -which is where I find their hypocricy- is this: If education is the way to bring about change, then why is the FSP trying to get over 20k to move to New Hampshire to vote for libertarian office holders? If the inhabitants of New Hampshire wanted libertarian office holders then wouldn't they have already voted them into office? If so then what is the purpose of 20k plus people moving to New Hampshire to vote for libertarians? If, however, the inhabitants of New Hampshire didn't vote for libertarian office holders, then couldn't it be construed that the FSP's objective is to 'force' libertarians onto people who don't want libertarians?

If the Free-Staters truly wanted to be consistant, then they wouldn't go to New Hampshire to vote but to educate the current inhabitants of New Hamshire to the benefits of Voluntaryism, so that those who have lived in New Hampshire could vote for libertarians of their own free will if they wanted to?

So is it wrong...

...for like-minded individuals to congregate in communities at any level so as to benefit from like-mindedness?

Is it wrong for Liberty folks to organize and win local GOP committee seats, if most of the GOP in the area are more mainline/neocon, but less active politically?

I think there's nothing wrong with people having the Liberty to assemble regardless if it swings them from minority to majority. If a bunch of non-Mormons wanted to move to Utah because of some business or other advantage, and if by doing so Mormons were suddenly no longer a majority, would that be wrong?

Doesn't this sound just like

Doesn't this sound just like all level of government?

like-minded individuals to congregate in communities at any level so as to benefit from like-mindedness?

I personally don't agree that just because Statists were able to get enough of themselves elected that they should have any power over individuals; but, I suppose you disagree.

Theoretically...

it's the fault of the people who keep electing the statists that they remain. Corruption/apathy among the people allows them to run amuk. If Liberty folks can congregate to gain a foothold against this, more power to them.

You offer no reasoning as to

You offer no reasoning as to what is wrong with moving to a state to try to become the majority? If you believe in liberty you believe in our right to do this. It is your argument that lacks consistency. They are not trying to subvert the majority, they are trying to -be- the majority. Regardless of any of this, the laws they are seeking to initiate are simply to bring an end to unconstitutional action, which no majority has a right to perform anyway.

I never said it wasn't your

I never said it wasn't your right to do it, I said it wasn't idealogically consistant; there is a difference.

Which constitution does what they want to do violate?

Was the North or South correct in the Civil War?

You fundamentally do not

You fundamentally do not understand liberty. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about it. YOU are clearly the one whose ideology is inconsistent. You say you support freedom of speech, yet when it is exercised you claim moral high ground for trying to shut people up.

I:
Believe in liberty and freedom of speech.
Disagree with things people say.
Want to change their opinion and/or become a majority in te area so that their opinion won't matter for political purposes.

You:
Claim to believe in liberty and freedom of speech.
Disagree with things I say.
Want to change my opinion.
Claim that while this is ok, me disagreeing with others and wanting to change their opinion is not.

I think the inconsistency lies on the other side of the table my friend.

You put your finger on the basic conundrum

They should change the mission statement to reflect your concern.

"We are moving to New Hampshire to live our values in peace with our neighbors. At the same time, if by living our values, we are able to change hearts and minds, bringing more people to liberty, we will have contributed to a better world and realized a life worth living."

Offering a well-differentiated, peaceful, assertive presence often brings about desired outcomes.

There are many Free Staters doing just that.

You should still consider coming to New Hampshire.

It's called defense

looking at the big picture one can see that this country and its people have been attacked over and over again. I have a right to defend myself and that includes ousting your ass if you go against my natural rights.

Only hypocritical liberals and neo-cons (liberals) whine about being "attacked" after they've done it for over 100 years. We as a movement are right.. they are not. They're lucky that the only thing that's been done to date is political.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

So the people of New

So the people of New Hampshire have attacked you, huh? I'm sure they would like to know that you apparently think of them as attackers. How many of those who live in New Hampshire have the Free-Staters actually told what their purpose for moving there is/was?

You may try to say we have been attacked, but it is all nonsense; if that was the case then why don't you attack those who have attacked you -namely your own state. So, if France attacks somebody then it is ok for that country to attack the UK?

If New Hampshire becomes what you desire it to become, then you wont mind if a Fascist group does the same thing to you guys and takes over the state now would you? You may not, because you haven't lived their your entire lives.

If education is the way to go, and your message is the be-all-to-end-all, and those who already live in New Hampshire are the most freedom loving people in the US, then wouldn't educating those who are already there and convincing them to become libertarians/AnCaps be soo much easier than convincing 20k+ people with no feeling for New Hampshire, one-way-or-another, to move there?

While you debate the rights and wrongs

the ins and outs and the good, bad and theoretical, I'll live in the real world where we're going to have to move it along.

I don't believe education is the ONLY way and I'm still libertarian (Not big L..nor do I believe that NAP fits your attempt to blur the lines and confuse the issue.)

If they try and take our guns, I'm going to fight. I don't care if a neocon cries about it because our country HAS BEEN run over by them and their twins, the liberals.

During the Revolutionary war, not everyone supported the Founding Fathers and their plan either.. I don't need you to agree with it, I just need you to pick a side or get the fuck out of the way.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

The founding fathers didn't

The founding fathers didn't ask libertarians to move to one colony to "move it along" either.

Your argument -and therefore your ideology- is void of consistency.

Actually it's the same thing

except a modern version of it.. Your shortsighted attack on "our" ideology missed the mark.

The Founding Fathers were the original libertarians. The Founding Fathers intent has been attacked.. We are moving towards a totalitarian state where all of the ideals held by them are and will be washed away. People moving us towards socialism and away from that are my enemy, there are no innocents in this, when your vote enables the higher ups to do just that.

I don't need you to be okay with it and your lucky people like me have only done it through political means, because we're deadly serious.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

You don't need for me to be

You don't need for me to be okay with it, however, you cannot stand on a soapbox claiming idealogical consistancy either(libertarians/AnCaps). Either, people can be consistant, in which case the FSP is a violation of consistancy(NAP); or, one can go with the FSP and abandon consistancy. One cannot claim ideaolical consistancy while embarking on the FSP.

The Founding Fathers never tried to move a mass of people to one colony; you still haven't answered how exactly what the FSP is doing is actaully similar to what the Founders did. Then again, all of you FSPers never answered any of the questions I have posed to you.

I'm sure you are deadly serious; that being said, it's been eleven years and counting and the only thing which has changed is that now the FSP needs more people to move there then they did even two years ago. I can see how that is winning. Also, for being the State with the people who desire the most freedom, I find it interesting that two States(WA, and CO) have legalized recreational marijuana, but New Hampshire hasn't even been able to leagalize Medical Marijuana; sounds like a bunch of liberty lovers there to me. The only thing which would be of any interest to me is the no CCL.

I also would prefer a sales tax as apposed to a high property tax, but my state has both(a property tax and a sales tax); however, it has a much lower property tax and a 6% sales tax which isn't bad since most of the few things which I do buy usually come from out of State so I don't pay the sales tax anyway.

All you're doing is trying to spin our ideology

in such a way as to use it against us. Won't work.

People are free to travel between states for whatever purpose, it is in no way a violation against NAP to further a political message with your feet.. That is a 1st Amendment right. If I don't like something that's going on in a state, I can either move away per my ideology, which is voting with my feet or I can move to it. Those people don't own that state exclusively and furthermore, they are attacking us on many levels.. The female politician there even said she would endeavor against us.

"What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the 'freedoms' that they think they will find here"

So you support her? She wants to restrict freedoms and that isn't an attack huh? lol

I know people like you enjoy muddying the water but I can see right through it and nothing.. I mean nothing will stop people like me from taking this country back, one way or another.

Oh and two more things.. No pot isn't legal yet but it is decriminalized. People don't have to worry as much about it.

http://www.theweedblog.com/new-hampshire-house-votes-to-decr...

Also...They've accomplished a great deal with more to come so your dismissive statements mean jack squat.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Furthering a political

Furthering a political message with your feet, is the practice of moving to a place which already is practicing your belief. It is not moving to an area for the sole purpose of changing it because it happens to have a smaller population and is therefore less able to twart your invasion.

If the people already living there want to vote to limit their own freedoms then isn't that their right to do so? Do you happen to think that you know what is best for those people? If so then you don't sound that much different than the authoritarians which you claim to appose. Oh, I get it; it is only okay when you do it.

Also, isn't it a person, State, or Businesses right to be able to serve whom they want. Then can't that female politicians statement be understood that if it were to pass that those in the State don't want what your selling; and wouldn't it therefore be their right to keep you out? Property rights, States rights, does this only mean anything when it is useful for your purposes?

People don't like the idea of other people moving to their area for the sole purpose of changing it; how you cannot see that it is anathema to what you claim to support is beyond me.

"Furthering a political message with your feet, is the practice

of moving to a place which already is practicing your belief. It is not moving to an area for the sole purpose of changing it because it happens to have a smaller population and is therefore less able to twart your invasion."

Who says? Do you have a playbook that the rest of us weren't given? Maybe you could just dictate to all of us what it is you want us to do and how so we don't bend the supreme law of "The Philosopher"

"If the people already living there want to vote to limit their own freedoms then isn't that their right to do so?"

Nope. If people wanted to institute human sacrifice should we stand by and watch that too? What she proposes goes against the supreme law of the land. I have a duty to stop her and people like her.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

If you happen to agree that

If you happen to agree that the FSP is trying to move a large group of people to an area to change the politics there because it has a small population and is therefore unable to thwart your invasion, then how do you consider that not an act of agression agaisnt the indiginous population of New Hampshire?

By the way, I want to do it with Alaska as well

Very small population and an even much smaller political population. Also , I'd like to help the growing secessionist movement. That would be great if we could take over Alaska and secede as well. Then all of you necons and liberals can have the rest of the country as long as you leave us alone.

Just kidding.. We're taking the whole country back. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

You seem to think that theyre squatters

What you're missing is that they're not tresspassing on individual homes and squatting on others' property.

They're buying or renting homes with the consent of the seller/landlord. If there is or isn't an existing group of people who claim to be a "state" and have the right to rule the home, it's not their problem.

Your argument is akin to my buying a house from a seller in south central LA then saying that I, as a new resident in the hood, don't have a right to help organize neighborhood watch groups to combat the Crips and Bloods, as they were here before I moved in and therefore their reign is somehow legitimate.

The state is in the same moral position as a local gang. As a newcomer into the region, you only need permission from the landowner from whom you buy or rent. If there are others who (falsly) claim to have the right to rule over the property, this isn't your concern.

What you and most people

What you and most people arguing with me apparently are missing is that I'm just pointing out that inconsitency of their actions with the NAP. Just because the residence happen to be oblivious to what the actual reason for people moving there is, doesn't mean that they agree with it in anyway. They(Free-Staters) seem to be using subversive tacticts which then will comeback to bight them on the @ss. Were the Greeks justified using the Trojan Horse? If the Free-Staters are justified in using subversive tactics, then aren't everybody else?

What if the residents like the crips and the bloods in the neighborhood? Then you are trying to dictate to a bunch of people what they should and shouldn't have because you deemed it so. If you don't want people interferring in your life, then maybe you should show it and stop interferring in other peoples lives.

The road do hell is paved with good intentions.

The state is in the same moral position as a local gang. As a newcomer into the region, you only need permission from the landowner from whom you buy or rent. If there are others who (falsly) claim to have the right to rule over the property, this isn't your concern.

Where to start with this? Well, if people -the current inhabitants- allow for or put-up with either the State or gangs, then is it your job to interfere? What if they like the State as it is and wanted it that way which was why they voted for it to be that way; who are you to move there, with the sole intent on changing their State for no other reason that it was easier to invade that State then any other.

Landlord; isn't that the State? New Hampshire does have Property taxes, do they not? Doesn't the very existence of a property tax imply that the person who thinks they own the property actually doesn't own the property because the State can come and take it away? So, doesn't the very existence of a property tax indicate that the State is the legal and rightful owner of the property?

"Well, if people -the current

"Well, if people -the current inhabitants- allow for or put-up with either the State or gangs, then is it your job to interfere?"

you most certainly CAN interfere and not be "inconsistent" (as you falsly claim).

the residents of a state simply do not have the right to bind ALL residents of a state to their (the majorities) preference to live under the existing state. Individuals can only consent for themselves qua individuals.

therefore, the FSP people moving up there who fight to have the majorities decision NOT be applied to the entirety ARE acting in self defense and are not "inconsistent".

your entire argument hinges on the tacit assumption that the majority can speak for the entiriety.

I find this funny. your

I find this funny.

your entire argument hinges on the tacit assumption that the majority can speak for the entiriety.

the FSP people moving up there who fight to have the majorities decision NOT be applied to the entirety ARE acting in self defense and are not "inconsistent".

How can the FSP fight the majorities decision without itself becoming the majority? If the FSP becomes the majority, then how can it speak for the entirety; since as you say the majority shouldn't be able to speak for the entirety?

you most certainly CAN interfere and not be "inconsistent" (as you falsly claim).

So, if people can move to another State to protect the citizens of that State from succuming to horrible laws imposed my the majority, then:(1)Why don't those people who -live there but don't like it- just vote with their feet and move, and (2) would this then allow for the U.S. to step in for the defense of another Nation, or for the U.S. to interfere with the internal affairs of a nation which we have people in?

If the U.S. cannot interfere with the internal workings of other nations then is their a mechanism whereby only the people who have already moved to New Hampshire are the only ones contributing to the liberation of New Hampshire? As far as I'm aware of people from all over the U.S. and possibley the world buy things from NH Free-Staters and support the FSP in other ways, thereby violating any possible reason you may have that the U.S. cannot interfere with the internal affairs of other Nations.

Your argument cannot stay consistent on all size scales; it eventually is shown as being hypocritical.

"How can the FSP fight the

"How can the FSP fight the majorities decision without itself becoming the majority? If the FSP becomes the majority, then how can it speak for the entirety; since as you say the majority shouldn't be able to speak for the entirety?"

Why do you randomly assume im against ALL majorities, or ALL beliefs just if theyre held by the majority? im against the initiation of aggression. If there's a situation where aggression is being initiated, yet is perecieved as being legitimate because it has the support of the majority, I would be in favor of the majority (actually the entirety) realizing that the initiation of aggression is wrong. Only by setting up a strawman and claiming that im against majorities in and of themselves, regardless of what the majority stands for, does it appear I'm inconsistent here.

"So, if people can move to another State to protect the citizens of that State from succuming to horrible laws imposed my the majority, then:(1)Why don't those people who -live there but don't like it- just vote with their feet and move,and (2) would this then allow for the U.S. to step in for the defense of another Nation, or for the U.S. to interfere with the internal affairs of a nation which we have people in?"

re #1, I have no idea why other people who live in places do or dont move. However this is probably infleuenced by the fact that there are currently gangs that immorally claim the right to initiate aggression virtually everywhere. in LA its the Crips and Bloods, in NH its just a different gang.

re #2, i dont know what you mean by "US" because if uncle sam himself wanted to take up a gun and go help others who are being oppressed around the globe, of course he can. What he cant do is force me to pay for his gun or force me to othherwise help him. On an individual level, if you saw some tyrannical government oppressing its own people and you wanted to, on your own time and your own dime, go there to help the oppressed, even if the oppressed were a minority of the population, of course youd be moral to do so.

Hope this clears up some misconceptions.

If the U.S. cannot interfere with the internal workings of other nations then is their a mechanism whereby only the people who have already moved to New Hampshire are the only ones contributing to the liberation of New Hampshire?