Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

AnonT · Mar 9, 2004, 05:43 am

News story on the FSP

Has anyone else watched this video? There are some damn fine chicks moving to New Hampshire with the FSP! We need to do a Free State dating game with Jackie Casey. :) Firearms sales rep, and comic book art model.... *drools*

But, anyway, as for the serious part of this post:
Note at the end of the story how the reporters mention that the number of Democratic and Republican activists is only about 5,000 each - so even if only the 5,500 members who've signed up now move, we'll still be just as powerful. Then consider that for every die hard activist in a movement, there are generally 10 more people who support them but aren't active, meaning 5,000 would turn into 50,000 votes and 20,000 would turn into 200,000 votes, and we can almost definitely at least take a number of state legislative seats, even if we can't "take over".
Anyone out there who still thinks the FSP is unrealistic?

castille · Mar 9, 2004, 06:19 am

I think the Free State Project is an excellent idea. I like the fact that the libertarians aren't forcing anyone else to accept their lifestyle; they simply offer a place for people who share their values to go.

What is the business environment like in the Free State place? Is it a free market in general?

AnonT · Mar 9, 2004, 07:30 pm

It's a freer market than most of the US. They have no state income or sales tax afaik, and from what I've heard they have a pretty good job market. Even with no state mandated minimum wage (just the federal $5.15/hr, nothing higher), the couple of friends I have who are moving there sooner than I can say that they can easily get $8-10/hr at entry level jobs that don't even require a high school diploma (like fast food or manufacturing).

castille · Mar 10, 2004, 07:34 am

So if there are no taxes, I assume people pay for public services when they use it?

Do you also use the same US justice system, or are planning to implement your own?

AnonT · Mar 10, 2004, 08:30 am

A lot of government functions will probably be paid for through user fees, others would probably be paid for through vice taxes on victimless acts that are currently illegal under NH state law. For example, decriminalize drug use and prostitution, but place fines on each so that people who do them can pay a fine under state law rather than be prosecuted under federal law (although, with prostitution, we could probably legalize it outright, tax it, and require a license for all practicing prostutites, which requires them to submit to an STD test on a regular basis in order to uphold their license, using the taxes to pay for the cost of licensing and then some).

Since we'd still be a state of the US, we'd still be under the US justice system. For now, at least. However, we would make changes to state law to accomodate our views. Also, since it's illegal for someone to be tried and/or punished twice for the same crime, we could make things that the federal government makes illegal be illegal under state law, but with negligible penalties. Someone facing federal prosecution could submit themselves to a state court, plead guilty, pay a minimal fine, and be done with it.

SeanWah · Mar 11, 2004, 10:51 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
I think the Free State Project is an excellent idea. I like the fact that the libertarians aren't forcing anyone else to accept their lifestyle; they simply offer a place for people who share their values to go.

What is the business environment like in the Free State place? Is it a free market in general?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

According to the Tax Foundation, New Hampshire has the second best business climate in all of America. Wyoming is first, although Wyoming is also a lot wealthier, which goes a long way.

tivodan1116 · Mar 12, 2004, 01:58 am

AnonT, just to clarify what you said about being tried for the same crime twice, unfortuneately the Supreme Court does not agree with you. In Bartkus v. Illinois, 1958, the Supreme Court decided that being tried and convicted or not convicted by a state court does not attach double jeopardy in the case of a federal court. This is called the "dual soverign" doctrine, and what it means is that even in the Free State, if someone was convicted, say, of selling drugs, and paid a $5 "nuisence fine", they would still be liable for any federal charges. Moreover, the federal government would be able to use the testimony, allocution, etc, from that state conviction against the person... slam dunk to doing federal time.

It's sick I know, but then so are many things with the government of these United States, hence the NEED for the FSP

AnonT · Mar 12, 2004, 04:34 am

Damn.... my Constitutional Law professor didn't bring up that case. I will check the section on double jeopardy in the book again, though; I know there are a lot of cases where federal law enforcement will turn criminals over to the states if they carry harsher penalties, so I figured with that and what I knew of double jeopardy that people tried under state law couldn't be tried again under federal. Since they can.... well, fuck.
Maybe seceding will be necessary.

LiveAndLetLive · Mar 12, 2004, 06:44 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
So if there are no taxes, I assume people pay for public services when they use it?

Do you also use the same US justice system, or are planning to implement your own?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
NH has property taxes and runs ALL liquor stores in the state as a state enterprise.

Write Winger · Mar 13, 2004, 06:55 pm

Property Taxes are a greater threat to liberty than sales taxes or even income taxes....property taxes really means that the state owns the property and you pay rent. If you get behind on your rent the state takes your (its) land. The existence of property tax is the negation of private property and without the right of property you have no real rights at all. You are merely a share cropper.

I would venture to guess that New Hampshire's state monopoly on liquor also makes them very negative towards any type of competition in this area.

I for one would like to see the free state project succeed, but it has to be more than the typical Libertarian faire of standing outside the Post Office on April 15th...protesting the IRS as taxes climb year after year. It is not enough to try and affect the level of liberty.

castille · Mar 14, 2004, 06:47 am

Thats why rich people find ways to avoid taxes, otherwise they'd stand outside the post office protesting rising taxes

Ironically, if you work FOR the government you dont get taxed, but if you work for private enterprise, you do! Shouldnt it be the other way around?

But back to the Free State Project....how will the Free State differ from the rest of the US? Different attitude, laws, or something else?

lostkiwi · Mar 14, 2004, 06:08 pm

Actually Castille if you work for the Government you still pay taxes. They still take out Income, Medicare, and usually Social Security (though this last one differs depending on which gov you're working for). You still pay property taxes, you still pay income taxes, you still pay for tariffs, and what ever other hidden costs every product you buy has because of government regulation.

And BTW rich people pay taxes too. In fact the richest 5% of people in the U.S. pay about 95% of the taxes and the richest 1% pay over 65%. So you can let go of the rich never pay taxes B.S. if anything they are over taxed. And if you think that is unimportant just look at how Britain has fared as an industrial nation in the 20th century. It went from world superpower to U.S. lackey in under a hundred years. Is it coincidence that this coincided with a rise of socialism and entitlement in the country?

tusaki · Mar 14, 2004, 06:42 pm

Socialism coincided with buildup after the ravages of the WW's. it's not really socialism which took super power status away from Britain.

TooOlde · Mar 15, 2004, 03:28 pm

I happen to prefer Wyoming, and like Boston T. Party's reasons for doing so. Just makes more sense.

AnonT · Mar 15, 2004, 05:53 pm

As for the rich in the US and the taxes they pay, all the figures I've seen show the richest 1% paying 30% of the taxes and the richest 10% paying 70% or so.

castille · Mar 16, 2004, 06:55 am

Thats because the more money you make, the more taxes you pay in percentage.

In Norway, some people are even taxed up to 95% of their income!

Incredible....we are punishing success and giving rewards for failure.

Poetic_Justice · Mar 17, 2004, 02:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
As for the rich in the US and the taxes they pay, all the figures I've seen show the richest 1% paying 30% of the taxes and the richest 10% paying 70% or so.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I was just wondering if you could cite a source for this. I beleive you, but I personally tried to find a source for that statistic and was unable. So perhaps we're wrong eh?

AnonT · Mar 22, 2004, 08:58 pm

It was from one of Larry Elder's books. I don't remember which one, but I think it was from Ten Things.

commonsense · Mar 24, 2004, 04:22 pm

Hi Free Staters! I originally addressed this post to someone else, but maybe my chances of being enlightened will be better here:

I'm still in college but plan to investigate relocating to NH when I graduate, among many states for varied reasons. I went to the Free State Site and was impressed, although I am not yet formally involved.
I have said in other posts on this site that the idea of one state becoming an example to the others showing the benefits of less gov't and taxes and "outside the box" thinking applied to privatizing our needs is probably the only way, and a necessary first step, toward creating a real "less gov't" mentality nationwide,
and it had better hurry---because probably over half of us depend directly or indirectly on gov't programs or other spending, subcontracts, etc.

I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity of our constitutionally-intended individual freedoms, even when they include freedoms that, during the short term adjustment period a society starved of them for so long will undoubtedly have to go through...
What I mean is, while philosophically I believe that society would be morally and materially better off had it evolved in greater freedom, and would be better off in the long-run if a "Harry Browne, et al" viewpoint were newly espoused by most Americans,
I am interested how the seemingly well-thought-out FreeState project addresses the likely transitional probs it will face in this regard. After all, for example, we have all heard of the social probs that arise when a neighboring state has very different drinking age or bar closing time laws, etc, and young people flood across state borders to party, and it would be a shame if this important movement would suffer discredit as a result of this kind of phenomena.

We all know the heavily bureaucratically and ideologically socialist-invested media will focus on this sort of thing heavily to hurt its chances of taking off before it will ever recognize the benefits of less govt.

What are your thoughts, the FreeState transition policy, and another topic I find surprising, is the current popularity of ABC news (of all places!) allowing John Stossel as much free speech as he has been enjoying?

AnonT · Mar 24, 2004, 11:48 pm

No idea about John Stossel.

Anyway, I don't think we really have an answer to that. The FSP is just about getting 20,000 pro-freedom activists into a state where they will be able to have an impact (there are less than 5,000 activists total between the Democratic and Republican parties, so 20,000 will kick some ass). What they do once there is up to them, so you could certainly bring that up with members as a part of our strategizing.

However, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Whether or not the media is bashing us because we let the bars stay open all night and whether or not the state benefits from the vast majority of our plans. Actually, the biggest threat will come once taxes are significantly lower and the job market expands more than it already has, because then you'll have people from Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine moving in in large numbers to benefit from NH's lower taxes and better job market, while at the same time most of them will be voting for higher taxes and more restrictions that hurt the job market to pay for systems that bankrupted their home states and forced them to move. At least the first set of Vermonters to move will hopefully be Killington types who want low taxes. So, I suppose becoming victims of our own success is a possibility, but hopefully we can still use it as propoganda.

Mar 9, 2004, 06:19 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	I think the Free State Project is an excellent idea. I like the fact that the libertarians aren't forcing anyone else to accept their lifestyle; they simply offer a place for people who share their values to go. What is the business environment like in the Free State place? Is it a free market in general? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Mar 10, 2004, 07:34 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	So if there are no taxes, I assume people pay for public services when they use it? Do you also use the same US justice system, or are planning to implement your own? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Mar 11, 2004, 10:51 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
SeanWah Molten Ash Posts: 47	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) I think the Free State Project is an excellent idea. I like the fact that the libertarians aren't forcing anyone else to accept their lifestyle; they simply offer a place for people who share their values to go. What is the business environment like in the Free State place? Is it a free market in general?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> According to the Tax Foundation, New Hampshire has the second best business climate in all of America. Wyoming is first, although Wyoming is also a lot wealthier, which goes a long way.

Mar 12, 2004, 01:58 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
tivodan1116 Juris Doctor Location: NY Posts: 2,182	AnonT, just to clarify what you said about being tried for the same crime twice, unfortuneately the Supreme Court does not agree with you. In Bartkus v. Illinois, 1958, the Supreme Court decided that being tried and convicted or not convicted by a state court does not attach double jeopardy in the case of a federal court. This is called the "dual soverign" doctrine, and what it means is that even in the Free State, if someone was convicted, say, of selling drugs, and paid a $5 "nuisence fine", they would still be liable for any federal charges. Moreover, the federal government would be able to use the testimony, allocution, etc, from that state conviction against the person... slam dunk to doing federal time. It's sick I know, but then so are many things with the government of these United States, hence the NEED for the FSP "But it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you." - South Park on Richard Dawkins

Mar 12, 2004, 06:44 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) So if there are no taxes, I assume people pay for public services when they use it? Do you also use the same US justice system, or are planning to implement your own?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> NH has property taxes and runs ALL liquor stores in the state as a state enterprise.

Mar 9, 2004, 05:43 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	News story on the FSP Has anyone else watched this video? There are some damn fine chicks moving to New Hampshire with the FSP! We need to do a Free State dating game with Jackie Casey. :) Firearms sales rep, and comic book art model.... drools But, anyway, as for the serious part of this post: Note at the end of the story how the reporters mention that the number of Democratic and Republican activists is only about 5,000 each - so even if only the 5,500 members who've signed up now move, we'll still be just as powerful. Then consider that for every die hard activist in a movement, there are generally 10 more people who support them but aren't active, meaning 5,000 would turn into 50,000 votes and 20,000 would turn into 200,000 votes, and we can almost definitely at least take a number of state legislative seats, even if we can't "take over". Anyone out there who still thinks the FSP is unrealistic?

Mar 9, 2004, 07:30 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	It's a freer market than most of the US. They have no state income or sales tax afaik, and from what I've heard they have a pretty good job market. Even with no state mandated minimum wage (just the federal $5.15/hr, nothing higher), the couple of friends I have who are moving there sooner than I can say that they can easily get $8-10/hr at entry level jobs that don't even require a high school diploma (like fast food or manufacturing).

Mar 10, 2004, 08:30 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	A lot of government functions will probably be paid for through user fees, others would probably be paid for through vice taxes on victimless acts that are currently illegal under NH state law. For example, decriminalize drug use and prostitution, but place fines on each so that people who do them can pay a fine under state law rather than be prosecuted under federal law (although, with prostitution, we could probably legalize it outright, tax it, and require a license for all practicing prostutites, which requires them to submit to an STD test on a regular basis in order to uphold their license, using the taxes to pay for the cost of licensing and then some). Since we'd still be a state of the US, we'd still be under the US justice system. For now, at least. However, we would make changes to state law to accomodate our views. Also, since it's illegal for someone to be tried and/or punished twice for the same crime, we could make things that the federal government makes illegal be illegal under state law, but with negligible penalties. Someone facing federal prosecution could submit themselves to a state court, plead guilty, pay a minimal fine, and be done with it.

Mar 12, 2004, 04:34 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	Damn.... my Constitutional Law professor didn't bring up that case. I will check the section on double jeopardy in the book again, though; I know there are a lot of cases where federal law enforcement will turn criminals over to the states if they carry harsher penalties, so I figured with that and what I knew of double jeopardy that people tried under state law couldn't be tried again under federal. Since they can.... well, fuck. Maybe seceding will be necessary.

Mar 13, 2004, 06:55 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Write Winger Molten Ash Location: Texas Posts: 96	Property Taxes are a greater threat to liberty than sales taxes or even income taxes....property taxes really means that the state owns the property and you pay rent. If you get behind on your rent the state takes your (its) land. The existence of property tax is the negation of private property and without the right of property you have no real rights at all. You are merely a share cropper. I would venture to guess that New Hampshire's state monopoly on liquor also makes them very negative towards any type of competition in this area. I for one would like to see the free state project succeed, but it has to be more than the typical Libertarian faire of standing outside the Post Office on April 15th...protesting the IRS as taxes climb year after year. It is not enough to try and affect the level of liberty. My book... Write Winger: Solutions for the Politically Oblique available from Booklocker.com

Mar 14, 2004, 06:47 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Thats why rich people find ways to avoid taxes, otherwise they'd stand outside the post office protesting rising taxes Ironically, if you work FOR the government you dont get taxed, but if you work for private enterprise, you do! Shouldnt it be the other way around? But back to the Free State Project....how will the Free State differ from the rest of the US? Different attitude, laws, or something else? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Mar 14, 2004, 06:08 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
lostkiwi Molten Ash Posts: 60	Actually Castille if you work for the Government you still pay taxes. They still take out Income, Medicare, and usually Social Security (though this last one differs depending on which gov you're working for). You still pay property taxes, you still pay income taxes, you still pay for tariffs, and what ever other hidden costs every product you buy has because of government regulation. And BTW rich people pay taxes too. In fact the richest 5% of people in the U.S. pay about 95% of the taxes and the richest 1% pay over 65%. So you can let go of the rich never pay taxes B.S. if anything they are over taxed. And if you think that is unimportant just look at how Britain has fared as an industrial nation in the 20th century. It went from world superpower to U.S. lackey in under a hundred years. Is it coincidence that this coincided with a rise of socialism and entitlement in the country?

Mar 14, 2004, 06:42 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	Socialism coincided with buildup after the ravages of the WW's. it's not really socialism which took super power status away from Britain. Hope & Dream

Mar 15, 2004, 03:28 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
TooOlde Sedimentary Rock Posts: 6	I happen to prefer Wyoming, and like Boston T. Party's reasons for doing so. Just makes more sense.

Mar 15, 2004, 05:53 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	As for the rich in the US and the taxes they pay, all the figures I've seen show the richest 1% paying 30% of the taxes and the richest 10% paying 70% or so.

Mar 16, 2004, 06:55 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Thats because the more money you make, the more taxes you pay in percentage. In Norway, some people are even taxed up to 95% of their income! Incredible....we are punishing success and giving rewards for failure. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Mar 17, 2004, 02:05 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,) As for the rich in the US and the taxes they pay, all the figures I've seen show the richest 1% paying 30% of the taxes and the richest 10% paying 70% or so.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I was just wondering if you could cite a source for this. I beleive you, but I personally tried to find a source for that statistic and was unable. So perhaps we're wrong eh?

Mar 22, 2004, 08:58 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	It was from one of Larry Elder's books. I don't remember which one, but I think it was from Ten Things.

Mar 24, 2004, 04:22 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
commonsense Igneous Magma Posts: 335	Hi Free Staters! I originally addressed this post to someone else, but maybe my chances of being enlightened will be better here: I'm still in college but plan to investigate relocating to NH when I graduate, among many states for varied reasons. I went to the Free State Site and was impressed, although I am not yet formally involved. I have said in other posts on this site that the idea of one state becoming an example to the others showing the benefits of less gov't and taxes and "outside the box" thinking applied to privatizing our needs is probably the only way, and a necessary first step, toward creating a real "less gov't" mentality nationwide, and it had better hurry---because probably over half of us depend directly or indirectly on gov't programs or other spending, subcontracts, etc. I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity of our constitutionally-intended individual freedoms, even when they include freedoms that, during the short term adjustment period a society starved of them for so long will undoubtedly have to go through... What I mean is, while philosophically I believe that society would be morally and materially better off had it evolved in greater freedom, and would be better off in the long-run if a "Harry Browne, et al" viewpoint were newly espoused by most Americans, I am interested how the seemingly well-thought-out FreeState project addresses the likely transitional probs it will face in this regard. After all, for example, we have all heard of the social probs that arise when a neighboring state has very different drinking age or bar closing time laws, etc, and young people flood across state borders to party, and it would be a shame if this important movement would suffer discredit as a result of this kind of phenomena. We all know the heavily bureaucratically and ideologically socialist-invested media will focus on this sort of thing heavily to hurt its chances of taking off before it will ever recognize the benefits of less govt. What are your thoughts, the FreeState transition policy, and another topic I find surprising, is the current popularity of ABC news (of all places!) allowing John Stossel as much free speech as he has been enjoying? The Porcupine is a great symbol. READ THOMAS PAINE, "RIGHTS OF MAN" TO A KID

Mar 24, 2004, 11:48 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	No idea about John Stossel. Anyway, I don't think we really have an answer to that. The FSP is just about getting 20,000 pro-freedom activists into a state where they will be able to have an impact (there are less than 5,000 activists total between the Democratic and Republican parties, so 20,000 will kick some ass). What they do once there is up to them, so you could certainly bring that up with members as a part of our strategizing. However, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Whether or not the media is bashing us because we let the bars stay open all night and whether or not the state benefits from the vast majority of our plans. Actually, the biggest threat will come once taxes are significantly lower and the job market expands more than it already has, because then you'll have people from Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine moving in in large numbers to benefit from NH's lower taxes and better job market, while at the same time most of them will be voting for higher taxes and more restrictions that hurt the job market to pay for systems that bankrupted their home states and forced them to move. At least the first set of Vermonters to move will hopefully be Killington types who want low taxes. So, I suppose becoming victims of our own success is a possibility, but hopefully we can still use it as propoganda.