Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Monorprise
I for one do not want New England to moderate, I want them to drive themselves into the ground. Them are Nasty people with a hasty post-revolution history of statism.

Though I agree about New England in general, non-coastal New Hampshire outside north and west of the southeast corner, Vermont outside of the Burlington area, and Maine north and east of the southwest corner are much better. Yet even those areas would be very resistant to a bunch of libertarians trying to move in and take over.

Give the Free State Movement a few years to become frustrated or even downright angry with their choice of New Hampshire and the disenchanted may be willing to move to Wyoming or Alaska.

6 posted on 03/26/2011 6:16:35 PM PDT by Aroostook25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Aroostook25

” “I for one do not want New England to moderate, I want them to drive themselves into the ground. Them are Nasty people with a hasty post-revolution history of statism.”

Though I agree about New England in general, non-coastal New Hampshire outside north and west of the southeast corner, Vermont outside of the Burlington area, and Maine north and east of the southwest corner are much better. Yet even those areas would be very resistant to a bunch of libertarians trying to move in and take over.

Give the Free State Movement a few years to become frustrated or even downright angry with their choice of New Hampshire and the disenchanted may be willing to move to Wyoming or Alaska.”

From a Historical point of view Wyoming and Alaska would make great hosts states, both of them have a history of libertarianism. Their very wide open geography makes having a large number of rules piratically difficult to enforce anyway and largely unnecessary even where such rules would be appropriate else where.

As far as I could tell New Hampshire’s only real advantages is:
1: The moto(easily changed in other States).

2: Access to the sea, just not limited by the effective tax other states impose upon trade thou them.(Alaska also has such access)


7 posted on 03/26/2011 10:03:09 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Aroostook25

” “I for one do not want New England to moderate, I want them to drive themselves into the ground. Them are Nasty people with a hasty post-revolution history of statism.”

Though I agree about New England in general, non-coastal New Hampshire outside north and west of the southeast corner, Vermont outside of the Burlington area, and Maine north and east of the southwest corner are much better. Yet even those areas would be very resistant to a bunch of libertarians trying to move in and take over.

Give the Free State Movement a few years to become frustrated or even downright angry with their choice of New Hampshire and the disenchanted may be willing to move to Wyoming or Alaska.”

From a Historical point of view Wyoming and Alaska would make great hosts states, both of them have a history of libertarianism. Their very wide open geography makes having a large number of rules piratically difficult to enforce anyway and largely unnecessary even where such rules would be appropriate else where.

As far as I could tell New Hampshire’s only real advantages is:
1: The moto(easily changed in other States).

2: Access to the sea, just not limited by the effective tax other states impose upon trade thou them.(Alaska also has such access)


8 posted on 03/26/2011 10:03:16 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson