Live Free or Die

October 1, 2003 2:28 PM

Planned Migration?Followup: "Q. Why don't we try 'taking over' a city, a county, a group of counties, or a foreign country?" (previously discussed here about a year ago) Hey, who needs possible sedition charges when you have the governor of New Hampshire welcoming you to move on up! Should residents of New Hampshire be at all concerned or is this just a wacky and carefree group of folks?
posted by lazywhinerkid (33 comments total)

Talk about flash mobs.

Reminds of of Hijack the Starship.
posted by beagle at 2:32 PM on October 1, 2003

Here's a recent Yahoo News story on this topic.

As someone who visits NH on a regular basis, I'd say they'll feel right at home. Plus, perhaps they'll get rid of the Hampton Toll Plaza .pdf.
posted by anastasiav at 2:35 PM on October 1, 2003

Pllaned Annual Post?
posted by m@ at 2:36 PM on October 1, 2003

Pllanned llama sppelling to boot.
posted by m@ at 2:38 PM on October 1, 2003

"They could privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and monopolies."

Um, that worked really well with the phone company.
posted by Outlawyr at 2:45 PM on October 1, 2003

The project already has more than 5,000 members committed to relocating to the "free state." They hope to have 20,000 by 2005.
Add a date and you'll exceed your goal, since that is how tv business today tries to attract their viewers.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:49 PM on October 1, 2003

Perhaps they'll get rid of the Hampton Toll Plaza.

I thought the libertarian line was that all roads should be toll roads. That way they are paid for only by people who use them, rather than through the oppressive and unjust taxation of the general public. (Of course, the most efficient way to implement this would be through an RFID system, but the privacy issues would probably rule that out in a free state. Then again, free citizens would be free to avoid roads requiring RFIDs if they didn't want their movements tracked.)
posted by alms at 2:55 PM on October 1, 2003

Speaking as a native and 22 year resident of New Hampshire, we don't like outsiders around here.

And Anastasiav, we don't much like Mainiacs telling us how to run our highways.

But seriously folks, we don't like outsiders, and it's pretty highly unlikely that these 20,000 people will make much of a difference anywhere except in Coos County.
posted by crazy finger at 2:59 PM on October 1, 2003

Freedom and property ownership are mutually exclusive.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:00 PM on October 1, 2003

It really does seem excessive to have to pay a whole dollar to drive in New Hampshire for about 15 minutes.
posted by JanetLand at 3:52 PM on October 1, 2003

Living in a state run by libertarians is one of my personal nightmares, and the only thing that keeps my incredible curiousity and excitement at someone performing just such an experiment at bay is my sense of worry for the minority victims in this state.

Of course, aren't they going to have to contend with rich powerful folks associated with venerable institutions that may not favor free state goals?

I would have thought Wyoming would have been much more amenable to this.
posted by namespan at 4:01 PM on October 1, 2003

namespan: you mean Dartmouth, in the mighty metropolis of Hanover.

Yale is in New Haven, Connecticut.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:24 PM on October 1, 2003

They should have chosen Alabama. The government is imploding here anyway.
posted by spartacusroosevelt at 4:35 PM on October 1, 2003

Worked for Israel.

[ducks]
posted by scarabic at 4:38 PM on October 1, 2003

Overheard on Car Talk: "Live, freeze, then die."
posted by PrinceValium at 4:41 PM on October 1, 2003

Darn. I was really hoping that the FSP would select Montana as the "test bed." We only ranked #3, though.

Sure to be interesting...
posted by davidmsc at 4:48 PM on October 1, 2003

Hmmm... This is interesting. I certainly hope just for curiosity's sake that they do try and turn New Hampshire into a Libertarian's paradise. I wonder if they'll succeed or if their paradise will turn out like the "worker's paradises" of the world.
posted by gyc at 4:58 PM on October 1, 2003

Wow. Something actually worse than the hordes of flatlanders that invade us each fall and summer? I imagine that the whole "movement" will loose steam after one or two winters. . . hopefully.
posted by Gif at 4:59 PM on October 1, 2003

Hey great idea. They should coordinate with the Rajneesh nutters for some innovative strategies for community takeovers.

As the summer of 1984 waned, a cult led by the Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh near the town of The Dalles, Oregon, used a biological agent to sicken hundreds in an apparent dress rehearsal to sway the outcome of a local election ... Starting on 29 August, the Rajneeshees began sprinkling their Salmonella typhimurium in personal drinking glasses, on doorknobs and urinal handles, on produce at the local supermarket, and on salad bars in eleven restaurants.

posted by meehawl at 5:00 PM on October 1, 2003

namespan: you mean Dartmouth, in the mighty metropolis of Hanover.

Yale is in New Haven, Connecticut.

Well, our free state overlords are clearly in no danger from me, since my knowledge of East Coast geography clearly prevent me from even finding one of the 13 original states.

/puts on dunce cap, sits in corner
posted by namespan at 5:07 PM on October 1, 2003

Project members also like the state's constitution, which protects the rights to revolution and secession.

Yeah, I see a very warm new england welcome in their future.
posted by Gif at 5:19 PM on October 1, 2003

Um, that worked really well with the phone company.

Um, wireless.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:29 PM on October 1, 2003

But seriously, I really hope they do reach a critical mass which can make a real difference in the state's politics...maybe the socialists/communists can mobilize a similar migration to California, the white supremacists/fascists to Idaho, etc.

Re New Hampshire: is the US already too far gone for a new try at "classical liberalism" (libertarianism)? I hope not; it could be just the kind of experiment which revitalizes the country, even if it ultimately fails.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:37 PM on October 1, 2003

i hate how some bogus groups bastardize the word "free."

if we're going free, let's go all the way, wild west style shoot-outs and whatnot. i don't think the FSP would be "free" enough for me.

i agree with space coyote. i want access to everything. free, baby, free.

on the other hand, best of luck to them. it's good to see any (somewhat) rational attempts at experimental governing, and it's nice to see that they're promoting non-violence. i won't be visiting, however.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:40 PM on October 1, 2003

As a libertarian, I'm pretty skeptical of this.

1. The overwhelming majority of bad legislation, over-regulation, civil liberties violations, etc., occurs at the federal level. Even if they are able to eliminate all of these things at the state level (a huge if), how much difference is that going to make in the average citizen's life? You still won't be able to smoke a joint, the poor will still be taxed to death, corporations will still be subsidized, John Ashcroft will still be able to send jackbooted thugs to your house at three in the morning.

2. Many of our problems (at least, the things that are a problem from a libertarian point of view) are direct consequences of our system of government itself — a poorly-planned repesentational democracy which tends to generate far more legislation than necessary by its design.

3. Inertia. Assuming these people can get a significant voting bloc in the state legislature, how feasible is it to reverse a decades-old intertwined morass of legislation and regulation?

Of course none of this holds if they are planning to actually exercise those secession provisions. In any case, I'd love to be proven wrong.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:07 PM on October 1, 2003

1. The overwhelming majority of bad legislation, over-regulation, civil liberties violations, etc., occurs at the federal level.

Say that for purposes of argument, we assume that this is true over the past few years.

It's still that case that over the long term, it's the states that have been most violative of civil liberties, and the states have not stopped this of their own will but been forced to by federal courts and legislation.

It wasn't the federal government that legally mandated the segregation of private businesses. It wasn't the federal government requiring students to pray particular prayers, or that theoretically banned atheists from holding office (as a few states still theoretically do to this day). It was not the federal government banning consensual adult sodomy.

It was the federal government that stopped these things. It was the federal government that imposed constraints on runaway cops, like the exclusionary rule.

Likewise, over the long haul state governments have been vastly more corrupt than the feds, and have been much more likely to have their governments devolve into issueless goodie machines.

You still won't be able to smoke a joint, the poor will still be taxed to death, corporations will still be subsidized, John Ashcroft will still be able to send jackbooted thugs to your house at three in the morning

When states had their way -- before the feds made them stop it -- you still weren't able to smoke a joint, corporations were (and are) even more subsidized, taxes were (and remain) more heavily incident on the poor, *and* business owners were required to maintain separate facilities for black customers at their own expense, among many other disgraces, *and* students were required to pray specific state-approved prayers, *and* gay people were forbidden from having sex, *and* contraception was forbidden, *and* lawyers and physicians were forbidden from advertising, *and* cops could beat confessions out of you with impunity and search your home with no warrant with no consequence.

None of which means that the feds are saints, but if you're going to bet on which level of government is going to do a better job of protecting civil liberties, the smart money is still on the feds.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:51 PM on October 1, 2003

It's great that people that people want to get involved and change stuff to make a point.

The problem is, New Hampshire is a state with actual people living real lives within a political order that isn't anywhere near dysfunctional. Treating the citizens of this state as abstractions for the cause is just plain disrespectful.

I'm sure this organization is perfectly unaware of that though.
posted by attackthetaxi at 1:44 AM on October 2, 2003

Yes, much better to do nothing... Right?
posted by eas98 at 7:39 AM on October 2, 2003

I would say to the folks living in NH, "Don't Worry". It ought to be a fascinating experiment, and these folks will work hard to succeed.

I used to be a Libertarian, but discovered it was far too flawed. None the less, a good friend is still in that camp (and I was the one who got him there!), so he has kept me posted about the FSP, of which he is part. I am most interested in the evolution of housing in absence of zoning laws and building codes.
posted by Goofyy at 8:10 AM on October 2, 2003

The problem is, New Hampshire is a state with actual people living real lives within a political order that isn't anywhere near dysfunctional.

In other words, they're already libertarians...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:38 AM on October 2, 2003

Worked for Israel.

Quite the contrary, Israel was founded by Socialists. Google "kibbutz" for more info.
posted by alms at 9:38 AM on October 2, 2003

New State Motto: "Marijuana AND Guns!"
posted by kablam at 11:12 AM on October 2, 2003

Yes, much better to do nothing... Right?

In this case, yes. The people of New Hampshire will decide whether change is necessary. Not some organization of well-meaning dunderheads from outside the state, who don't know about the local and regional issues, and likely do not care.
posted by attackthetaxi at 1:26 PM on October 2, 2003