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

To: Dr. Frank
Free, adult American citizens purchasing property or renting a residence in a free, American state, and then moving there, is "invasion"? Only by a very wacky definition of that word (according to which everyone "invades" every single city they move to).

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. That's close enough to "invasion" for me.

That said, their goal is to elect people with like-minded views into office in that state. It is hyperbole, but not wholly inaccurate, to call that "taking over". It's what everyone attempts to do when they cast a ballot at the polls.

If you look at the link provided above, the goals are to do all sorts of libertarian things, all of which require a strong majority. Which is pretty much "taking over," n'est pas?

20000 libertarians ... will not be enough to form a majority government of New Hampshire.

Probably correct. Which makes the lofty claims for the FSP somewhat speculative -- even silly.

27 posted on 10/01/2003 2:05:47 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: r9etb
"20000 libertarians ... will not be enough to form a majority government of New Hampshire."

Probably correct. Which makes the lofty claims for the FSP somewhat speculative -- even silly.
27 -r9-




Nope, it makes your hyped up claims about the FSP lying speculation -- and more than silly.
33 posted on 10/01/2003 2:18:34 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: r9etb
[moving in peacefully to affect voting outcomes] That's close enough to "invasion" for me.

Suit yourself. The term sure has lost 99.999% of its bite since the days of the Mongol Hordes....

If you look at the link provided above, the goals are to do all sorts of libertarian things, all of which require a strong majority. Which is pretty much "taking over," n'est pas?

Well I should explain. Certainly I agree that their goal is overt and it is to affect the body politic of some state by concentrating their votes so that their votes will be significant. Duh.

A big reason I object to a characterization of this as "taking over" is because nobody can "take over" anything in the United States. We have limited government here. If the libertarians or anyone else really were "taking over" some state or part of a state, it would be cause to send in the troops, IMHO. Whatever "libertarian things" they intend to do, will by definition have to be things that are already within the power of NH state officeholders to do, otherwise they won't (and can't) do them.

What is really going on is that they intend to vote for libertarian-leaning candidates in the hopes that they (the libertarian-leaning candidates) instead of others will be elected to office (not "take over", but elected to various offices - with finite terms of office, limited powers, checks and balances, etc.) What I'm saying is that you're generally right in a metaphorical kinda way that they're "trying to take over", but to say it this way is an invalid attempt to make it sound sinister.

There is nothing at all sinister about voting for certain people in the hopes that they'll do the sorts of things you like in office.

[20000 won't make majority] Probably correct. Which makes the lofty claims for the FSP somewhat speculative -- even silly.

I agree that the whole thing is speculative (and I think they would too). Dunno if I'd call it "silly" but I, like you, have a hard time taking the whole thing seriously. However, for different reasons than you.

I just have a hard time buying the idea that all these 5000 pioneer libertarians will follow through on their "pledges" to move to NH. Who's gonna enforce it? They're libertarians for crying out loud. ;-)

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 was your parody of their aim (which I debunked), not their actual aim. Their aim, as I understood it, was to get enough voters into some state that their swing vote would actually be significant and the (D)s and (R)s would have to pay attention to them, and (over the long term) the politics of the state would be shifted in their favor, hopefully causing a self-perpetuating process. Obviously the latter part is the "speculative" part, but it is feasible that 20000 libertarians transplanted into NH would have some effect anyway.

36 posted on 10/01/2003 2:26:47 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | 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 ]

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