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

Skip to comments.

Libertarians Pick N.H. for 'Free State'
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | Oct 1, 2003 | KATE McCANN

Posted on 10/01/2003 1:02:12 PM PDT by luckydevi

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-79 last
To: jim_trent
Sure I have. I have a co-pay, but I'm sure my Zyrtec doesn't come cheap. However, most of the cost of legal drugs is to offset the cost of developing them. Also, look at how much the price drops when patents run out and generic brands are available.

Now look at the cost of illegal drugs. They're expensive because of a lack of supply. If they were legal (which would likely result in much greater supply), prices would have to drop. They wouldn't drop to zero, but they just might drop to the point where *pushing* them is uneconomical. Certainly there would be *no* point in violence.
51 posted on 10/01/2003 3:30:08 PM PDT by Windcatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Well, to get to the roots of this, "invasion and taking over" were the words used by Mr. Babiarz.

Yes, to say that's not what he's doing.

I'm using the terms in the same loose, offhand manner he does, but in fact the LP is trying precisely to "invade and take over."

Not "in fact". In metaphor. If those terms are used in a loose, offhand manner.

That being said, in all fairness we should acknowledge that their goal was never to create a "majority" by getting 20000 libertarians into the state. That's where we disagree. The stated goals of the FSP are to effect a number of very significant changes.

You don't seem to understand that you don't actually disagree with me. Yes the FSP is trying to effect significant changes, like you said. But not by creating a "majority", like I said. Rather, by getting a significant minority concentrated in one state. So you are not contradicting me even though you seem to think you are.

52 posted on 10/01/2003 3:49:54 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: coloradan; Windcatcher
Do you both believe that the "little guy" will be allowed to continue to make, smuggle, or distribute drugs? Or will there be "purity" and "safety" standards demanded by the public and naturally, the politicians will respond.

I seem to remember reading on this website about marijuana in Canada. Seems the Canadian government allows it for medical uses. The Canadian govnerment spent MILLIONS of dollars creating a factory in an abandoned salt mine. It costs them more than the "street" cost. Then the patients got mad because it did not give them much of a high.

I wish Libertarians luck on this project. At least now, we will be able to see if their ideas are stupid or right-on. Then we wouldn't have these kinds of endless (and useless) conversations.
53 posted on 10/01/2003 3:58:56 PM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Do you think that if enough states could roll back liberalism...

Personally I don't think it is possible to roll it back in most places. In the couple of states on the list of candidates for the FSP it is possible because it does not have an established stranglehold yet. For everywhere else there is no reform possible, only a collapse. California is an interesting test case. Will it begin to reform now that business if fleeing, the middle class is hard pressed and the budget is 38 billion in the red? or will it have to totally collapse before liberalism can be seen for unworkable aberration of nature it really is? Any bets?

As for the secession bit, well there are two futures for the country. One is the nation is incorporated into a North American Union with Canada and Mexico and eventually into a hemisphere long block of the United Americas or it will become so balkanized that it dissolves into regional ethnic enclaves who then secede. Both options are possible. Total reform and preservation of the nation in the tradition of the founding fathers - a long shot with chances next to nil. One or two states holding out is the best we can hope for.

54 posted on 10/01/2003 4:04:10 PM PDT by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
Yes the FSP is trying to effect significant changes, like you said. But not by creating a "majority", like I said. Rather, by getting a significant minority concentrated in one state.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that. I would not at all be surprised if the FSP was not only the dominant party in NH by the time of the 2008 election, but by the end of the decade, could actually outnumber the others put together, less perhaps the undeclared voters.

Of course, numbers can be tossed around and projected on paper to a political Ponzi fare-the-well, but the basic numbers of FSP growth in the last two years stand:

October, 2001: start

Oct, 2002: around 1000

Oct, 2003: circa 5500

Now run those numbers forward two more years hence to Oct 2005, when the number of pledged Porcupines is predicted to hit 20k and the 5-year timeframe of the migration is to begin. And figure the continued numbers if the growth curve does NOT fall off or cease....

Likewise, the numbers of NH political registered voter distribution are on the table for any to see: Plug 'em right in here.... [registered, not ACTUAL voters]

NH State voter registration, September ’02 2001 [after list purge]

REPUBLICANS 245,791/ 37.3%
UNDECLARED 242,028/ 36.8%
DEMOCRATS 170,405/ 25.9%

55 posted on 10/01/2003 4:36:03 PM PDT by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: archy
October, 2001: start Oct, 2002: around 1000 Oct, 2003: circa 5500

Um, these are people who have "pledged" to move to NH. As I understand it, they aren't actually there yet. This is all hypothetical and, as I explained in an earlier post, my skepticism basically comes entirely from the fact that I have doubts as to whether/how many of these people will follow through on the pledge in the first place. We'll see, though. Look, I have nothing against the FSP, I have no axe to grind, in fact it seems like an entirely reasonable and utterly fair endeavor (not to mention, much better than bloodshed!) for a group of people to pursue if they seek significant political change in their lives.

But we'll see.

Now run those numbers forward two more years hence to Oct 2005, when the number of pledged Porcupines is predicted to hit 20k and the 5-year timeframe of the migration is to begin. And figure the continued numbers if the growth curve does NOT fall off or cease....

I'm familiar with how exponential growth works. I'm also familiar with the potential pitfalls on relying too much on it in your reasoning. I believe it was Malthus who proved that, due to exponential growth, we're all dead (or never were born) due to mass starvation. There's also the matter of how you are estimating your "predicted growth rate". You could be off in your predictions by a "small" amount in the growth rate, and lead to an error in the tens of thousands in your prediction of the population totals of free-staters....

All I'm saying is, I'm skeptical, and we'll see. I'm kinda rooting for it to be a significant thing, actually, in kinda the same way that I'm rooting for the Cubbies and Red Sox in the playoffs... but we'll see.

56 posted on 10/01/2003 4:47:10 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: archy
Wyoming would have been my choice. Or Idaho. NH? Pretty state. Concerned about the "bleed-over" (of liberals) from Massachusetts. Wouldn't it be amusing to see a boat load of you guys going to Martha's Vineyard for vacation? The possibilities (for humor) are enormous...
57 posted on 10/01/2003 4:47:53 PM PDT by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Do you think that if enough states could roll back liberalism within their own borders we could give secession another shot? ;-)

I think if enough of the rot is stopped and reversed, secession may well not even be necessary.

Do you figure the liberals counted on this to occur:


58 posted on 10/01/2003 4:52:31 PM PDT by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
I'm familiar with how exponential growth works. I'm also familiar with the potential pitfalls on relying too much on it in your reasoning. I believe it was Malthus who proved that, due to exponential growth, we're all dead (or never were born) due to mass starvation. There's also the matter of how you are estimating your "predicted growth rate". You could be off in your predictions by a "small" amount in the growth rate, and lead to an error in the tens of thousands in your prediction of the population totals of free-staters....

All I'm saying is, I'm skeptical, and we'll see. I'm kinda rooting for it to be a significant thing, actually, in kinda the same way that I'm rooting for the Cubbies and Red Sox in the playoffs... but we'll see.

Just so. And pyramid schemes are great, until they oversaturate and then collapse very suddenly; just the reason to be watching for any indications of that sort of change in the FSP numbers. But I also remember an election in the 1980s in which given a choice between Tweedledum and TweedleDumber, one voter in five picked the little Texan with the funny ears, instead. I suspect even more would do so now, whether he had a snowball's chance in He!! of winning or not.

The growth curve numbers can be seen charted as follows, and if you'd like the raw numbers, they're easily obtainable and I'd be glads to provide you with them.

But take a look yourself, and tell me where, assuming growth at the rate of the past 24 months continues, YOU would project the total membership numbers will be in 2008 and 2010. And right now, we've got 150 Porcupines resident in NH. When that number doubles, I'll be paying attention to where it leads as well.

59 posted on 10/01/2003 5:03:04 PM PDT by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: donozark
Wouldn't it be amusing to see a boat load of you guys going to Martha's Vineyard for vacation?

We've got the boat. You bring the shrimp.


60 posted on 10/01/2003 5:06:36 PM PDT by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
Do you both believe that the "little guy" will be allowed to continue to make, smuggle, or distribute drugs?

If drugs are decriminalized, yes. If they are "legalized" then, probably, no. In the latter case, the government will adopt the role of drug distributor. Pusher, if you like.

Or will there be "purity" and "safety" standards demanded by the public and naturally, the politicians will respond.

1. There aren't such standards now, and people buy them. 2. Such standards will only be brought about if the government becomes the pusher. Would you prefer that?

I seem to remember reading on this website about marijuana in Canada. Seems the Canadian government allows it for medical uses. The Canadian govnerment spent MILLIONS of dollars creating a factory in an abandoned salt mine. It costs them more than the "street" cost. Then the patients got mad because it did not give them much of a high.

No surprise there, private enterprise does nearly everything better than government does, anyway. Why should this be any different?

I wish Libertarians luck on this project. At least now, we will be able to see if their ideas are stupid or right-on. Then we wouldn't have these kinds of endless (and useless) conversations.

Yeah, we woudn't need to have discussion forums at all if everyone thought the way you do.

61 posted on 10/01/2003 5:08:04 PM PDT by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: archy
That's a nice graph but the data it plots is (I assume) irrelevant.

There are two semi-independent physical quantities to care about here, and you are confusing them.

Quantity #1: how many people have "signed up" for the FSP. This is, I assume, what your graph is a plot of. I'm assuming that to "sign up for" FSP requires little more than going to some website and typing in your name, or something similar. (I don't know if there's a fee/donation required, but it wouldn't change my interpretation much.)

Quantity #2: how many people actually live in the designated Free State (which turns out to be New Hampshire) as part of, or an indirect result of, the FSP. (They don't have to move there; they can already be there, or they can be previously non-FSPers who "get converted"...but for now the main way this number will change is through movement.)

It should go without saying, but apparently doesn't, that moving to a different state as part of some political movement requires a far bigger commitment than typing your name into some web page.

Now, as far as I understand the whole situation, the only people we can currently chalk up to Quantity #2 at the moment are the people who: "signed up for" FSP and already live in New Hampshire. You said that this quantity is somewhere around 150. So if we want to make a relevant graph, we have to erase yours and instead put a little dot at the y-value "150".

But that's all we can plot, at the moment. And the graph you've just shown me doesn't give us any additional information to go on. The growth rate for Quantity #1 doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the growth rate for Quantity #2, in particular.

But we'll see.

62 posted on 10/01/2003 5:22:28 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Well, the plain fact is that the LP is organizing and effort aimed at gaining majority political influence in a small state. Its strategy is to get "their people" to move into said state, for that express purpose.(from your reply #27)

...but in fact the LP is trying...(from your reply #40)

Can you support this with a reference? Or do you just make up any story to fit your fantasy?

I personally find the entire FSP to be a sad joke. The fact that a few Libertarians have bought into it, only says that the LP also has its kook fringe.

63 posted on 10/01/2003 6:04:54 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 3Lean
"...incarceration of drug users (demand) will cause demand to disappear."

Go to prison for drinking a Martini?!! never happen, too many drunks out there.

64 posted on 10/01/2003 8:56:51 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: luckydevi
NH is a good choice for the Libertarians. It has a common border with Canada and access to the sea.

Makes drug smuggling easier.
65 posted on 10/02/2003 5:36:43 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
Can you support this with a reference? Or do you just make up any story to fit your fantasy?

"Invade and take over" are the words used by Mr. Babiarz. I'm merely borrowing them, and am not overly concerned with the accuracy of the terms.

But "invade and take over" are actually a pretty good description of what the FSP is all about.

The "reference" you need is FSP itself -- move a bunch of folks to a small state ("invasion"), and then elect enough LPers and fellow-travelers to turn the state into a LP paradise ("take over").

The FSP is certainly a fantasy. My only point is that Mr. Babiarz is denying the fact of what the FSP is really all about.

I personally find the entire FSP to be a sad joke.

Well, maybe. It's possible that, if they cluster in only a couple of districts, they could elect a couple of people to something more than city dog-polisher. It's even possible that those folks could be somewhat effective -- but I think they'd mostly be relegated to Ron Paul status.

The fact that a few Libertarians have bought into it, only says that the LP also has its kook fringe.

And that's really saying something.....

66 posted on 10/02/2003 6:57:58 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"Invade and take over"

In my reply #63, I did not quote you on your use, or anyone else's use of the words "invade and take over." Nor did I say anything about those words or their meaning. I have no opinion on this figure of speech that seems to have varying interpretations, and varying degrees of accuracy. I say "seems" because I really don't have any thoughts on the topic.

What I did quote you on, and I quote again:

Well, the plain fact is that the LP is organizing and effort aimed at gaining majority political influence in a small state. Its strategy is to get "their people" to move into said state, for that express purpose.(from your reply #27)

...but in fact the LP is trying...(from your reply #40)

Note: the quotes from you do contain the words "invade and take over." What the two quotes from you have in common is that they both state that "LP" is trying or is organizing such and such. As I asked in reply #63, I ask again now:

Can you support this with a reference? Or do you just make up any story to fit your fantasy?

67 posted on 10/02/2003 8:29:29 AM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
Can you support this with a reference? Or do you just make up any story to fit your fantasy?

Perhaps you need to read the article and thread so that you can gain a sense of context?

The head of the NH Libertarian Party used the words "invade and take over."

The clearly stated goal of the FSP (somebody provided a link to the site, above) is to a) get a bunch of libertarians to move to NH, and to basically enact the LP platform. The article says the same thing.

The terms "invade and take over," seem to be a rather fitting description of this project, and the "references" are right in front of your eyes.

This is not difficult stuff, jack.

68 posted on 10/02/2003 8:41:17 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I repeat. I have no opinion about the words "invade and take over." I have had nothing to say about them. I do not disagree that those words were used, and I do not disagree that those words best describe the FSP. I have expressed no opinion on that matter, as I have no opinion on the matter.

My simple question, can't be that hard to understand. Now for a third time, I quote you:

Well, the plain fact is that the LP is organizing and effort aimed at gaining majority political influence in a small state. Its strategy is to get "their people" to move into said state, for that express purpose.(from your reply #27)

...but in fact the LP is trying...(from your reply #40)

And My question, again for a third time:

Can you support this with a reference? Or do you just make up any story to fit your fantasy?

The question is quite simple. Can you reference that the "LP" is organizing this project? Or do you just make up what ever you want about the LP and state it as a fact?

69 posted on 10/02/2003 10:00:57 AM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
The question is quite simple.

Ahhhh -- so finally you ask the question you meant to ask, and not the one I was answering. OK, then. In the future, maybe you can ask the proper question the first time?

Can you reference that the "LP" is organizing this project? Or do you just make up what ever you want about the LP and state it as a fact?

Actually, I'm just assuming that, based on the fact that it's always billed (see FR posts on it) as a "libertarian initiative," and the fact the Libertarian Party spokesmen are generally quoted in the articles.

In this article, for example, the chairman of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party refers to the FSP as something "we" are doing, and the LP seems to endorse the idea.

I'm no doubt glossing over the subtleties of who's actually sponsoring it, though the LP is clearly a major player (two of FSP's leadership team are LP members). It's a matter of some indifference to me, however, whether we're talking about 'L' or 'l' ibertarians.

Pretty much the only point I'm making on this thread is that the head of the NH LP was not telling the truth about "invade and take over."

70 posted on 10/02/2003 10:33:09 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
when the FSP folks have worked hard for 5 or 10 years to lower taxes, remove gun laws, make people responsible for themselves, and create liberty and prosperity, we'll be sure to put up a fence to keep out the liberal trash like you from ruining our hard work.

regards...
71 posted on 10/02/2003 10:45:57 AM PDT by bc2 (http://www.thinkforyourself.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Ahhhh -- so finally you ask the question you meant to ask, and not the one I was answering. OK, then. In the future, maybe you can ask the proper question the first time?

Actually I asked it quite accurately the first time, and clarified it the second time. The third time I had to explain it like I was talking to a child. You only need to read what is written, without jumping to conclusions.

I see however, by your answer, that jumping to conclusions, and adding your own fantasy to what is plainly in front of you, is not an occasional occurrence, but a regular occurrence.

Not only were you not able to get my simple question correctly, but you admit that you were "assuming" from "FR posts" and "articles" that which neither have been saying. Your not being able to accurately understand my original question, is exactly the same as your not being able to understand the "FR posts" and "articles." I guess you are "assuming" to much.

It's a matter of some indifference to me, however, whether we're talking about 'L' or 'l' ibertarians.

Now that is a lame excuse for your jumping to conclusions, and getting the facts wrong. Libertarian Party members are not the same thing as the "LP." An "LP" officer, is not the same thing as the "LP."

Ahhhh - I guess a bit of innaccuracy and sloppy thinking, doesn't really matter that much to you.

72 posted on 10/02/2003 11:38:28 AM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
Actually I asked it quite accurately the first time, and clarified it the second time.

Actually, I had no idea what you were asking until you actually came out and said it the third time. You asked for "references" to something, but didn't say what. Perhaps I'm too childish to understand.

Or perhaps you're such a poor writer that you are unable to ask a good question the first time.

As for the rest, who gives a damn. I stand by the observation concerning "invade and take over," and the rest is irrelevant -- as is the FSP.

73 posted on 10/02/2003 11:44:58 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
It is not "irrelevant" when inaccurate information is stated as a fact on any subject under discussion. It leads to faulty conclusions.
74 posted on 10/02/2003 11:55:12 AM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
And then explain away the resulting mess.

As opposed to exlaining the current mess? None of the proponents of the status quo seem to feel any need to do that, so I'm not sure the reformers will need to (if they every could succeed, but they won't. The WOD is completely institutionalized at this point).

This is not something I would waste time worrying about.

75 posted on 10/02/2003 12:56:44 PM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Freakazoid
Mostly, yes, but not always. Hopefully, they'd vote for liberty of the people at all times.
76 posted on 10/04/2003 11:17:09 AM PDT by dixierat22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HEY4QDEMS
I agree with you that we are currently in a mess, but legalizing drugs is not the answer.

Is that in the same sense that legalising alcohol did not clean up the mess Prohibition created? Drugs, including cocaine and heroin, were legal in this country for years. The real problems didn't start until the Feds started their "War on Drugs". 30 years later, we've got a bigger problem than ever and no end in sight.

77 posted on 10/04/2003 11:22:39 AM PDT by dixierat22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dixierat22
Is that in the same sense that legalising alcohol did not clean up the mess Prohibition created?

Absolutely
78 posted on 10/04/2003 11:42:19 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: HEY4QDEMS
"If you don't believe me, ask the widow of the pharmacist who was killed by the addict trying to score some Oxy-Contin."

Why would someone kill someone for something they can buy over the counter?(if drugs were legalized)

As for the FSP taking over, 20,000 can not take over, but 20,000 activists can perswade others to vote their way.
79 posted on 10/06/2003 7:38:58 PM PDT by dustind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-79 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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