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.
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."
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. The bottom line is that the goal is to enact LP policy, which can only be accomplished by achieving a working majority.
As you noted, the 20,000 folks probably wouldn't do it, and I agree with you that their hopes would be to convince non-LPers to go along with them.
That might happen, but it probably won't, for the same reason the LP doesn't do well anywhere, at any level: they too often come across as whackjobs who do things like nominate blue guys for governor, or Rick Stanley for U.S. Senate, and whose platform seems to be to legalize drugs and ignore foreign threats.