Skip to comments.Free from MA!
Posted on 01/20/2005 5:55:50 AM PST by bookish_lass
Jim Perry in "Escape from Massachusetts"
Fed up with high taxes and the Massachusetts nanny state, Jim Perry joined the United States' fastest-growing freedom movement, the Free State Project, and publicly broke his bonds from big government. To symbolize this event, Jim chained himself to a pole in Massachusetts at its border near Nashua. Freestaters at the event witnessed thousands of cars pouring in to New Hampshire from Massachusetts for sales-tax-free shopping. Jim remained chained for about an hour, holding a sign urging people to "Cut the chains of statism. --freestateproject.org". Compatriots in the Free State Project handed out flyers explaining the project and held signs:
"Escape to NH. --freestateproject.org"
"Honk if you love NH. --freestateproject.org"
"Now escaping Massachusetts"
Freestaters who had already made the move to NH then broke his chains, allowing him to make a mad dash to his freedom. Once there, he celebrated some of the freedoms one immediately gains when crossing the border: he destroyed a MA income tax form (NH has no state income or sales taxes); he drove a car without a seatbelt (NH is the only state without a seatbelt law for adults); and he openly carried a handgun, reveling in the freedom to protect himself and his loved ones.
Not all who attended the event were Freestaters. Two assisting in Jim's break for freedom were NH natives who welcome the Free State Project. They admitted that before they began working with the Freestaters moving to NH, they were ready to leave New Hampshire. Now they've decided to stay and be a part of Liberty in our Lifetimes.
How do you make that distinction? If someone else's exercise of their own individual liberty makes you uncomfortable, then does it become "license?" Or do you have a different standard?
I don't think you'll find any libertarian who will say that polluters or anyone else should be immune from liability for the harm they do to others.
That's what the courts are for, and it's only the anarchists who say we don't need a government-run court system. Most libertarians aren't anarchists, though.
With respect to narcotics distribution, yeah, I know what you mean... the local CVS has had a really significant negative impact on traffic in the area, and our taxes have to pay for the maintenance signal that went in at the entrance to its parking lot.
Cute, Michael. But are you suggesting that street dope peddlars aren't a problem, or that crack ought to be legalized, regulated and sold by CVS? I'm as much in favor of the 2nd Amendment as I know you are, but you'd need an arsenal to protect you from the results of legalizing drugs. I would probably make an exception for marijuana (whose only serious negative effect seems to be to hinder coherent thought and cause people to vote for Democrats), but other than that, regulation won't work for drugs whose sole purpose is abuse. CVS sells narcotic-based drugs, but only those with demonstrable pharmaceutical value. Crack, on the other hand, is what's in demand on the street, and if you've seen what that stuff does to people, well, no amount of libertarian theorizing can excuse it.
Crack itself is a byproduct of the drug war. Compact, easy to smuggle, high profit margin, low cost to value ratio, etc. Much more economical than powder cocaine.
I think it's safe to say that if tobacco or coffee were banned, we'd be decrying the scourge of crack nicotine or crack caffeine.
We're already starting to see a violent criminal element get involved in cigarettes in states like NY and CA where the taxes are high enough to make smuggling extremely lucrative.
The problem people seem to have is that when it comes to drugs, any rational understanding of market forces, unintended consequences, and simple economics goes right out the window in the face of emotional appeals on behalf of people who made their own free choice to ingest the drug in the first place.
And besides, they can't even keep drugs out of prisons, where on-demand body cavity searches are de rigeur, so what makes you think that they'll ever be able to keep recreational drugs out of society as a whole? The word "police state" doesn't even begin to describe would would be necessary.
Posted a bit too soon.
Basically, Andy, I think that we have a much better chance of fixing the drug problem in the US if we stopped treating it like a criminal issue and started treating it like a public health issue, which is what it really is.
"We are moving to another state to escape the sky-high real estate taxes and home prices.
Goodbye New Hampshire, suburb of Boston."
LFOD please stay!!! We need folks like you so bad, but the threat is not Mass. immigrants overall, most of them are conservative according to stats the Union Leader researched last year. The threat is the NH public schools which has driven Live Free or Die out of our kids' minds.
Stick with us please; it's still the freest state in an unfree Union and the tax burden is lower here than everywhere else. If there's something you don't like here please help us change it; just come over to www.NHunderground.com to see what we are doing to fight the tax and spenders...there was nothing like it when you left unless you just left!
In any case thanks much for your service and keep safe so we can have you back!
Bad behavior (such as drug abuse) is not caused by bad incentives - it is caused by a lack of virtue: which is to say that it is a human failing. People are not perfectable. Ideologues of the Left believe that they are - and that Government ought to be the agent of perfection. Ideologues of the Right (insofar as many exist these days) demand that State power be used to impose morality by criminalizing "bad" behavior, or any behvior of which they disaprove .
Our Founders rejected these extremes because they knew that a free people could maintain their freedom only through the practice of Virtue. The role of Government in this regard is to promote such virtue, in part by protecting citizens from damage to life and property caused by poor behavior and by directing the mediating institutions of society (families, neighborhoods, churches, synagogues, businesses) to police themselves and their members. In the absence of self-corrective action, however, Government must act where threats to life and property become imminent and irreversible. John Locke (for one) recognized this police power as a necessary evil in a democratic Republic, but one that must be exercised for the purpose of maintaining public safety and and an orderly society.
We have today a substantial number of people living in this country who do not possess the personal responsibility, much less the knowledge, to live productive lives. That problem cannot be solved by Government alone - after all, it was Government that helped cause it. And having assisted in the development of such pathologies as drug abuse, the Government must now shield the innocent from them - at least until Virtue is rediscovered by those in most in need of it.
"LFOD please stay!!! We need folks like you so bad, but the threat is not Mass. immigrants overall, most of them are conservative according to stats the Union Leader researched last year. The threat is the NH public schools which has driven Live Free or Die out of our kids' minds."
I'm booking me a moving van to New Hampshire, likely sometime in late 2007 - just in time for the Presidential (silly) season. Timing dictated by how big a posse we bring.
I seriously doubt I'll be going with less than 4: my son estimates 15, but that could be optimistic (or pessimistic; Ohio has more young people leaving than any other State in the Union; their taxes are exceeded only by Maine and New York).