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.

So, if the inhabitants of New

So, if the inhabitants of New Hampshire don't want what the Free-Staters are selling, then the Free-Staters will 'force' them to accept it, because it is for their own good. Is that your position, because it certainly sounds like that is what you are saying.

Fine; your not against ALL majorities, just the ones that don't follow your dictates.

re #1, I have no idea why other people who live in places do or dont move.

Don't be ignorant; you know as I know the FSP can only work if people move to New Hampshire. So, why if there are gangs somewhere would somone move there? I've never heard of people moving towards gangs, usually away from them. Do, you believe in vigilantism? You know, people moving around taking out other peoples problems without even being asked to do so?

e #2, i dont know what you mean by "US"

You know the United States. New Hampshire is still a part of it, you still pay taxes to it -in one form or another, people still volunteer to be the military for it. You know, that U.S.

So, if you pay taxes and vote, and someone else voluteers to be the military for it(the U.S.), then it(the U.S.) can deploy people for the benefit of others throughout the world. Those who have volunteer for the military can still opt out of going if they want -they probably wouldn't like the alternative, but they still have an option- so there is no force there. You still pay your taxes -one way or another- so you do so consent to their using that money, and you vote, thereby giving consent to the very existence of the problem itself. You just happen to complain that you don't like how it is being used; this is not the same as vehemently apposing the very existence of government -which quite a few libertarians(AnCaps) do.

I find it unethical to stick my nose in other peoples business; because sooner or later people will be doing the very same thing to you. The entire world will never agree on one single thing including NAP; so to place your argument on the basis of that being widely accepted, I find very interesting. You do not have the right to force your will on anybody period; you can try, but don't complain when negative consequences befall you because of it.

"So, if the inhabitants of

"So, if the inhabitants of New Hampshire don't want what the Free-Staters are selling, then the Free-Staters will 'force' them to accept it, because it is for their own good. Is that your position, because it certainly sounds like that is what you are saying."

for someone who has sucha hard time even UNDERASTANDING my position, you sure clainm to have found inconsistenceis in it a lot.

No No No, what you said above is NOT my posistion.

My position is that i am against all initiation of aggression and view all initiation of aggression as illigetimate. And that even if the majority of a certain arbitrary geographic area consents to aggression inposing it on the entirety is still aggression.

So you seem to think im "forcing non aggression" onto people? This isnt even a phrase that makes any conceptual sense.

No No No, what you said above

No No No, what you said above is NOT my posistion.

Why do you need 20k+ people to move to New Hampshire then, if not to elect those whom you believe will either repeal or enact laws which you beleive are supeior to what already existed there before you moved there? If the people of New Hampshire say that they do not want NAP, then will you leave? If you refuse to leave and contiue on with you mission of electing people against their will, then you are doing exactly what you said was NOT you position.

So you seem to think im "forcing non aggression" onto people?

If people do not want NAP, and you persist to push for it and elect people by way of have others -like yourself- move there for this purpose, then yes you are forcing NAP on people who do not want it.

This isnt even a phrase that makes any conceptual sense.

Sure it does. If somebody doesn't want something, but someother people continue to try and make them have it anyway, then that is force; and if or when New Hampshire decides they had enough of the NAP and don't want it and the FSP continues on, then you are forcing it (NAP) on people whom do not want it.

You assume that everybody should want it; I contend that if you really informed people of everything which it entails -including how it will negatively impact their particular lives- you will find that most people will not accept it.

No no.. You're being ignorant here

"Don't be ignorant; you know as I know the FSP can only work if people move to New Hampshire. So, why if there are gangs somewhere would somone move there? I've never heard of people moving towards gangs, usually away from them. Do, you believe in vigilantism? You know, people moving around taking out other peoples problems without even being asked to do so?"

You know what he means by gangs.. He wasn't talking crips and bloods but an established and entrenched tyrannically inclined power that dictates through a majority.

How terrible we are.. trying to make sure everyone EVERYONE gets a fair shake.

"I find it unethical to stick my nose in other peoples business; because sooner or later people will be doing the very same thing to you."

You're sticking it in right now by giving your opinion. :)

"You do not have the right to force your will on anybody period; you can try, but don't complain when negative consequences befall you because of it."

Tell it to the Founding Fathers that got us started down the road to Liberty. If they hadn't stepped up, this nation probably wouldn't have started.

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.

Actually I'm not being

Actually I'm not being ignorant. I'm not the one saying that I am going to New Hampshire with a horde of other people to install the government that I think the rest of the people -who by the way have the government they want- should have. That is being ignorant.

While pointing out the errors I percieve in ones actions vs their espoused ideology may be construed as sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, I am only doing it because I believe you should follow my dictates -therefore it is okay for me to do it. Also, while I am a greater friend to your cause then you may think, if you think that I am bad, wait and see if the FSP actually starts getting a bigger head of steam behind it; you will have people knit picking over every little thing. You all should be thanking me for giving you some practice defending your actions. :)

As for the founders, they never took over an actual colony first; they went straight to the head of the beast -which in this case would be Washington D.C. That being said, it did help that they had Pennsylvania at the time to go to -which was practically its own State rather than a Colony.

"I am only doing it because I believe you should follow my

therefore it is okay for me to do it."

And how is that any different than what you say we are doing? You're not as clever as you think you are. :)

See, the difference is, we are by law, right. We are just setting things back to the way they were meant to be which is a far cry from the way people have it now.

"Also, while I am a greater friend to your cause then you may think, if you think that I am bad, wait and see if the FSP actually starts getting a bigger head of steam behind it; you will have people knit picking over every little thing. You all should be thanking me for giving you some practice defending your actions. :)"

I don't think you're bad, just wrong.

"As for the founders, they never took over an actual colony first; they went straight to the head of the beast -which in this case would be Washington D.C. That being said, it did help that they had Pennsylvania at the time to go to -which was practically its own State rather than a Colony."

You're arguing semantics..the bigger point is that they fought for their independence in an attempt to right the wrongs they saw which included fighting against some colonist while another part stood by and did nothing either way. That isn't unlike what is going on at this moment.. We are fighting the same fight, whole others fight against us and still more are apathetic.

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.

That quote of mine which you

That quote of mine which you started with was a joke in reference to what you guys are doing. That it is okay because you believe that you know better than the people already there what they want or should have.

See, the difference is, we are by law, right.

The law is whatever the New Hampshire Constitution and Government say it is. If outsiders wouldn't be interefering with their process would any of the residents of New Hampshire have been doing anything or complaining; not likely. Therefore you (The FSP) created a problem whereby Free-Staters move there explicitly to find problem with their laws and to change them. That is far different then people there realizing that laws are destructive and therby decide to eliminate and repeal the laws; that would be of their own volition, what you guys are doing is starting the problem and then saying that you are the answer to the problem. If nobody was having a problem with the laws then what gives you the right to interfere with their state?

If you were from out of State, then whatever draconian laws they had on the books in New Hampshire didn't effect you; so then it can be said that you went looking for trouble by moving there with the sole intent to change what you didn't like about a system which -before you moved there- didn't effect you.

Remeber the words of Bruce Lee, "If you push me, I'll push you back." When the residents of New Hampshire on a large scale realize what you guys are up to, there will be fireworks.

I remember The Free County Project which started -I beleive- before the FSP. The goal was the same, but to take over a county in Texas which only had 40 residents. When they(the residents) found out what was going on, boy. Lets just say that there is no Free County Project in Texas -well, at least not that one. That was only 40 people, which a bunch of libertarians couldn't take over. They began refusing to sell any land, and passed several laws. This was in Texas, wait til you get them Neocons and Progressives in New Hampshire going. I'm sure they will pass anti-freedom laws.

I wonder if this guy who started the FSP was part of the Free County Project?

"That quote of mine which you started with was a joke in

reference to what you guys are doing."

I knew what you meant, of course it was obvious that you were either setting a "trap" or you said it in jest.

"That it is okay because you believe that you know better than the people already there what they want or should have."

Of course I do or I wouldn't even discuss my ideas with a neocon. I would have to think "my ideas" really the Founding Fathers ideas are best. That's what gives me the motivation to see it happen. That's how things work.

"The law is whatever the New Hampshire Constitution and Government say it is."

The law is what the "people" say it is and that includes the 20,000 new residents. :)

"If outsiders wouldn't be interefering with their process would any of the residents of New Hampshire have been doing anything or complaining; not likely."

Your logic fails here.. Of course there would most likely be people complaining.. Do you think there are no NH people unhappy that they see Liberty being pushed aside? You know better than that.

Most of the rest of that worked off of your assumption so I'll pass on commenting. That falls under one of those personal guidelines I use that I mentioned earlier.

As for the last part (your story).. I have no doubt that there instances where things didn't go to plan but there are also instances where they did.. Take this last election.. we may not have won every seat we went after nor kept all of them but we did keep some and in NH.. we didn't gain many more seats but we did keep the ones we had and we're getting things passed.. decriminalization was a step in the right direction. We got shut down on legalization 200? (think it was 224) to 86, which is better than previous years I believe.

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 state that, Your logic

You state that,

Your logic fails here.. Of course there would most likely be people complaining..

However, the problem you seem to have is:(1)government in any capacity requires the minority to accept the will of the majority; if there is a vote, it is not the minority which wins, is it? (2) Could the poeple of New Hampshire -which didn't like the laws- move out of State?

If an individual does not accept premise (1) then they can find no solice in even the most basic of societies -because they all have a similar basic premise if there is a vote at all. Premise (2) Voting with ones feet, is a way for an individual to escape draconian laws in one place by fleeing to another, if an individual cannot gain enough support in a given area to repeal or replace the draconian laws. While -as I've been saying since the begining- importing people is an option, it:(1) is certainly going to piss-off the people who have lived there which voted for the draconian laws, and (2)If education is such a great means of bringing about change then wouldn't it be easier to educate the indiginous population, then to import 20k+ new people. Maybe through education alone, as apposed to relying on importation of libertarians, New Hampshire could have already become a Free-State; but that would have required too much work, rather than make a website and get like-minded individuals to move there.

As I've already stated it has been 11 years and the only thing which really changed is now the FSP needs 3k more people to move there then it did when I first looked into it. It would seem as though it is moving backwards; doesn't it. So, if there is actually progress towards liberty being made, then it must be due to the indiginous people being converted rather than a migration of people. Again all progress could be lost if the people feel as though the FSP is trying to usurp their votes, by migrating a vast number of outsiders into the State.

If you had a State exactly the way you believe it should be; how excited would you be to find out that a good majority of the new residents moved there for the sole purpose of out voting you? I can gaurantee, you would not be happy about it, as the residents of New Hampshire are not going to be happy when they realize what the FSP is actually up to.

None of what you've said negates anything I've said

You seem to be back on "FSP hasn't accomplished anything or has went backwards" when it's clear that they have and quite a good deal too.

We could go round and round forever on this but I have more pressing issues, namely gun control, I want to focus on.

Since neither of us is going to change our minds, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm out.

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.

Because they are attacking the nation as a whole

Unfortunately, the action in one state and it's representatives go further than it's borders. Funny how she wants to deal with it though.. by restricting 'Freedoms' lol

Go get'm Chase you greasy old bitch!

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.

She appears to be a lunatic,

She appears to be a lunatic, and even those people In NH who don't agree with the Free-Staters are concerend by her statement of limiting everbodies freedom for the sole purpose of keeping people out.

If the Free-Staters do nothing else they should certainly point out that all laws and regulations act similarly to what the laws Chase is proposing would act; and that would be to limit some for the purpose of keeping other out entirely.

Also, if they could vote her out of office that would be great. Don't worry, my desireing for the Free-Staters to vote her out doesn't violate my personal beliefs. For I wasn't arguing my personal beliefs, I was arguing against the hypocracy of most of the Free-Staters saying one thing but then doing another.

They are not hypocritical

There is an ultimate law of the land and they break it every time they vote to mandate to everyone. Essentially what you're saying is that we all should leave America if we aren't happy with Obama banning guns.. I mean the majority voted him in so by default they vote, if he can get it passed, we should accept it or leave.

Not gonna happen. I will get aggressive if those things happens.

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.

Essentially what you're

Essentially what you're saying is that we all should leave America if we aren't happy with Obama banning guns.

This is the voting with ones feet possition - if you don't like it then you can leave. This is used far too often by far to many varying groups for my liking.

Do we have the right to solicit outside help to fight against Obama's gun grab; because this is what the Free-Staters currently in New Hampshire are currently doing by soliciting help from people outside of New Hampshire.

They are voting with their feet.. they're choosing to fight

instead of leave. You quoted Reagan as the one who promoted "voting with your feet" but I fail to see an issue with moving to a state that's more appealing and where you have a chance to actually make a difference.

You should really think about the practical application to those sayings and all of it's possibilities.. you seem to be stuck on it as if moving away is the only right thing to do. If we chose to move away from a state we would

A: Be saying that we don't want to have a say in the political process and therefore those that are in charge now are the way it should be

B: We would be going to a state that we deemed more to our liking.. all the while leaving it to the mercy of whoever the indigenous population puts in office. That somehow we're not allowed to interact politically because that population owns that state.

People are moving away from their states.. if their states were Liberty minded, I doubt they'd leave to begin with so in essence they are voting with their feet. Now they're in NH because they see that state as better than what they have now and a chance to make a real difference.

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 difference being that,

The difference being that, people do things because of how it effects them; when an individual puts out a plan to say move to New Hampshire to oust the politicians there so "we" can put our people in. That is a subversive tactic.

If you were to be sick and tired of your state and you searched online and then discoverd that you would fit in with New Hapshire, so therefore you move there(as an individual not a group movement) of your own volition rather than soemone putting and idea in your head; that is an organic natural thing -voting with ones feet.

If you look on the internet and somebody is advocating for people to move to New Hampshire for the purposes of over powering the indiginous peoples in their elections, and you decided that sounds like a good idea; so then you move. That is not voting with ones feet, that is attacking and indiginous population. That is an act of aggression agains the indiginous population and a decleration of War.

You're splitting hairs

but seriously.. How can someone be subversive against an "adversary" that was subversive to begin with? I mean if you believe that this is a Republic and the Constitution acknowledges that we all have the same natural rights as the next. That we have a duty to throw off a government that we find find to be tyrannical, even at the end of a gun.

If laws were made where everyone was considered, we wouldn't be here to begin with. One couldn't or wouldn't make a law that infringes on another's right.

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.

None of The Constitutions

None of The Constitutions actually count anymore. Whether it be the individual State Constitutions or the U.S. Constitution, they have been usurped for such a long time that they are no longer valid; so, it doesn't really matter what it or they acknowledged.

Laws cannot be made where everybody was considered, because some people would want laws to 'protect' them -provide securtiy- while other people would want laws which protected their 'rights' and as a society -for lack a better word- expands and ages, 'security' will always trump 'rights.' This has been shown throughout history to be acurate, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. People become lazy and unwilling to do the things necessary to maintain their freedom, because they have plenty of distractions to keep them occupied, as to not even know that they lost something -their rights.

Also, in keeping on the subject of Laws; laws only protect the law breakers, laws do not and cannot protect the innocent. The reason this is, is because to protect the innocent would require prevention of a crime; while protecting the law breaker is to prevent the victims from seeking vengence, by placing the law breaker in protective custody i.e. jail. This is why I do not believe in laws at all. However, I do believe in consequences. If one robs somebody, then there may be negative consequences, such as the robber getting killed by the victim. I do not think this is wrong.

I do believe there may be negative consequence to the actions of FSP which may greatly -in a negative fashion- impact all of us who seek liberty.

Voting with ones feet, as

Voting with ones feet, as Reagan first called it, was always known as the practice of moving away from what you didn't like and moving to that which you did like. Nobody has ever referred to 'moving to something which your not entirely happy with in the hopes of changing it,' as voting with ones feet; as far as I'm aware of anyway.

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

Nope.

So, you do know better than those who already live there; why didn't you just say that. It certainly clears up a lot.

If they vote for human sacrifice and the people to be sacrificed volutarily agree to be sacrificed, then what business is it of yours? Why do you get to tell people what they can and cannot do, but people cannot tell you what you can and cannot do? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Also, how come you, and other Free-Staters, never actually answer any of my questions with limited exceptions? You just place statements which don't even counter my question, or you ask your own questions which have no bearing on the questions I've asked. I answer your questions; why don't you take the time to answer mine?

I usually ignore questions I find ignorant, irrelevant or tripe.

"If they vote for human sacrifice and the people to be sacrificed volutarily agree to be sacrificed, then what business is it of yours?"

Glad you said that because here's the flaw in it.. They are voting to "sacrifice" people who don't agree with it. That's the problem.. They do it through laws that they deem everyone must obey.. so it isn't voluntary anymore.

Sure if they want to do something in the confines of their own group and beliefs I'm all for it but it's not limited to just them now is it. Therefore, it IS an attack on the rest of the people. By default, I no longer give a rats ass how the hypocritical douches see anyone's attempt at righting that wrong..

So let's look at your ideology so that we can better see where you're coming from. Are you a Libertarian/libertarian, a Constitutionalists, Liberal, Neocon or what? Notice how I split the big "L" and little "l".. I don't personally follow NAP quite like Big L's do so I don't know what you mean when you're saying I'm not consistent because I follow my ideology. I'd just as soon see them all dragged from their offices and replace them with Patriots.

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 they vote for human

"If they vote for human sacrifice and the people to be sacrificed volutarily agree to be sacrificed, then what business is it of yours?"

Glad you said that because here's the flaw in it.

Actually there isn't a flaw in what I said, for the begining of the sentence started out with "If" this makes the whole statement dependent on all of the part of the entire statement being true; meaning that for me to accept the consistency of them voting for human sacrifice then the people being sacrificed must volunteer. While you think this supports your belief of the wrongness of laws it doesn't for the simple fact that New Hampshire couldn't vote to sacrifice Bostonians without violating NAP; however if New Hampshire residence voted to sacrifice New Hampshire residence then my acceptance of that law would be contingent on if those to be sacrificed volunteered or not.

Now, however, if you are not a libertarian/Libertarian or AnCap but you are a total anarchist -being someone who doesn't believe in any laws rules or guidelines whatsoever- then one could have a reason to complain. However, it still wouldn't give one the right to go about changning it. If one was such a total anarchist -for lack of a better identifier- then why would someone be voting in the first place; since the very act of voting itself is anathema to a total anarchist's perspective?

They are voting to "sacrifice" people who don't agree with it. That's the problem.. They do it through laws that they deem everyone must obey.. so it isn't voluntary anymore.

If they are voting for it, then is it not their right to vote for it? If one doesn't like what they voted for, or how the vote turned out, then they can 'vote with ones feet' -the correct use of the term- and move to a place which doesn't do what they don't like.

As far as what label I place upon myself; technically I don't but the closest thing which I could put together would have to be something along the lines of an Individual Anarchist(an Individualist/Anarchist/Agorist/Voluntaryist Permaculturist/Aquaculturist etc). I guess something similar to a Yeoman.

Nothing of what I've been pointing out throughout this dialouge has neccessarily been anything which I bleieve in, with the exception of consistency.
While personally I don't neccessarily believe in the NAP, I do find that most of those moving to New Hampshire do believe in it and therefore I find them to be hypocrites.

"If" is irrelevant because it's a

hypothetical anyway..

But still working on that, you seemed to miss my tie in.. They have all rights to vote however they chose but they would be in the wrong if their vote punished those who did not agree with it. Real Liberty, acknowledges that everyone has a right to practice their own beliefs as long as it doesn't hurt someone-else. They can't say that as it pertains to their political agendas.

You might say that there are some similarities in what the FPS's are doing. On the surface that would seem true but if you dig a little deeper.. what they're really saying is "I will force you to be free and to allow those around you to be free to do as you see fit so long as you don't step on someone's right as well"

Thinking that education alone is going to get us there in a system like this is dangerous and naive. I don't follow NAP stringently either but I see this much in the same way that the colonies came together to fight one enemy.

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.

I do understand that what the

I do understand that what the Free-Staters are doing is 'Forcing' freedom on people, but do they have the right to do that? If they do, then do they have the right to do it without telling the people that they are doing it? If individuals are able to do it, then are States? If States can do it, then can the U.S. force freedom on people?

Some people are afraid of freedom: Eleutherophobia- this is a phobia of freedom, and people will react violently towards those trying to give them freedom. Then there is stockholm syndrome. People have been in bondage for so long, that most people are terrified of the idea of being free. It reminds me of in "The Matrix" Morpheus tells Neo that they usually don't pull someone out that late in life, because they will explode becuase they can't handle it. This I think is the problem. If people force it too much then others will react most aggressively against freedom; one cannot force somebody to want freedom, one can only show them the path.

Yeah but they're only pushing back against people who have

forced restrictions against their Freedoms as per the law of the land. One can't hide behind the Constitution while trying to destroy it. I could care less about those who aren't willing to accept Freedom and responsibility. Thoose who push economically wrong legislature upon an unwilling participate and or ignorant population. Your same argument could be and is used by many Liberals when trying to ban guns.. Listen to the hundreds of open carry confrontations with police where the cops say that "people have called in because they're scared"

Screw tjhose people.. the cops should tell them to get used to it because they have a natural right to defend themselves but no.. their problem becomes our problem as does all of the fascists laws they enact. Do they have a right to do that? Uh no, not to it's end result, not if you care to follow the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment recognizes (not grants) that we have a natural right to defend ourselves. It matters not that it's an AR-15 but people want to "discuss" it.

No more talking. I say no to unConstitutional laws. I say no to all and any state that tries to enact them.

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.

Nope

Because no one is being forced to move there. FSP is enticing as many people as they can. Free Market and all that...

BTW, I'm not a FSP person. Just answering your question about force.

While those who are moving

While those who are moving there are not being forced to do so, the people who have lived in New Hampshire -maybe their entire lives- are now going to be forced to live with the libertarians elected by a group of people, who other than to take over political offices, wouldn't have moved to New Hampshire. That doesn't sound like forcing ones will on people who ,more than likely, wouldn't want it.

No one is initiating force.

The Free Market will prevail.

Would those people moving to

Would those people moving to New Hampshire have moved to New Hampshire had it not been for the FSP?

While, 20K plus isn't enough people to completely take over political control technically considering the population, it is enough to take over most political control due to the number of the population which actually votes. Therefore, the entire reason for there to be a number such as the 20k plus -which the FSP desires to have move to New Hampshire- is to elect libertarians into office where they normally wouldn't get elected, thereby 'forcing' those -who had lived in that area their entire lives- to live with libertarians being elected which would otherwise not been elected had the Free-Staters not moved there for the purposes of electing libertarians.

So yes, I'm sorry but the FSP is forcing their view -trying to anyway- onto the people who have lived in New Hampshire for other reasons than to take over political power.

Government by the people

Isn't that what we are supposed to do as a nation? Bring people together for a common political goal?

Besides that, I cannot honestly be said that the current goal of government is for the people. Quite the opposite in fact.

Wouldn't "forcing" them have to include not allowing an alternative?

Are taxes forced upon

Are taxes forced upon people?

Wouldn't "forcing" them have to include not allowing an alternative?

There is an option or alternative to paying taxes, so I suppose taxes aren't forced on people just like Micheal Steele said they weren't.

Also, when a number of libertarian/AnCaps move to an area outnumbering either Dems or Reps there is no longer an alternative, with the exception of Dems and Reps voting for the same person of one of the other parties; let us hold our breath for that to happen.