NH: More Free Staters arrested in spat with Feds

[The Real Hawkeye]

As our society becomes more and more complex, there is and will be an increasing number of issues to disagree upon. The only way to preserve national unity and individual freedoms then is to adopt a philosophy of libertarianism and learn to respect other people's freedoms even if we disagree with their ideas.

Another, and even better way, is Federalism. That works great when it's allowed to. Federalism allows States and local subsidiary governments to generally govern themselves, without interference from Congress, the President and/or the SCOTUS. We would then be 50 experiments in republican forms of government, each placing a slightly different emphasis. California, NY, NJ, Mass, etc., will be socialistic and politically correct, while Wyoming, Texas, Vermont, etc., will be more libertarian in approach, and other States will find themselves somewhere in the middle. People holding minority views would be free to move to States more in line with their thinking about how government should be. This is the way the Founders intended our National Union to operate.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

It is a very long-standing tradition of the Republic, Mr. Eatman -- and any President who hasn't the guts to face it is no President I'd care to vote for.

Did you hear any gripes from Reagan? Ford? --Pfui, even FDR understood it and stood up to it.

...But wait! Once again, simple, peaceful protest, wavin' signs an' wearin' T-shirts, has gotten conflated with taking pot-shots at the Chief Executive. It ain't the same thing! Stop trying to pretend that it is.

Moonbats with signs are just moonbats with signs. It is the ones without signs and lacking visible battiness about which the SS - and den mothers of all sexes -- ought to worry, possibly even to bedwetting excess. But of course, the Lee Harvey Oswalds of this world are -- whine! -- soooo armed and soooo scary! Much safer to segregate the easily-IDed sign-wavers, maybe rough 'em up a bit. They've already shown their determination to avoid violence, which makes them way softer targets.

I am not sure what makes me more sick, such gutlessness on the part of all levels of government, or the speed and facile grace with which their apologists rush in to defend the behavior. You should be ashamed, sir. Ashamed.

--Herself

+1

 

[gc70]

It just irks me to no end! :banghead:

Me too, but probably not as much as my inability to personally gripe to the mayor of the city I live in (and the city is not that darned big).

The country just has too many people for democracy to work like many of us think it should.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Another, and even better way, is Federalism. That works great when it's allowed to. Federalism allows States and local subsidiary governments to generally govern themselves, without interference from Congress, the President and/or the SCOTUS. We would then be 50 experiments in republican forms of government, each placing a slightly different emphasis.

I agree in principle, but also recognize the opposite trend, one of centralization and increasing federal control, has been the reality for a long time. The central gov will never surrender power peacefully, which means the only non-revolutionary way to achieve positive changes in that direction is to engender a cultural change at the grass roots level. The problem is that at every level, there are significant forces against it - special interests at the top, busybody statist activists/welfarists at the bottom.

It is frustrating to know what would be best while having no practical means to achieve it.

 

[CAnnoneer]

any President who hasn't the guts to face it is no President I'd care to vote for.

My explanation is that they want to protect him from emotional distress. There have been other pings in the same venue:

1) "Whatever you do, do not upset the boy"
2) orchestrated conferences / questions sessions
3) reporter screening
4) reports of petty vindictive atmosphere at the WH
5) freezeup in the schoolroom
6) he does not "hear" questions he does not like

I am not convinced the guy can handle the picture in its entirety.

 

[DadaOrwell2]

One thing that's interesting to me is that Russell and Kat are getting a higher proportion of support on the neutral, neocon and liberal forums than you supposed libertarians are giving them here. Maybe that is one reason why libertarians are not calling the shots in government. So many of them are too busy interrupting their bretheren who actually stand up for their beliefs.

 

[DadaOrwell2]

Hank wrote:

<<Hmmmm anyone with an opposite view is "Riff-raff", eh ? At one point in our country's eveloution they were called "Patriots" >>

Thank, Hank!

Although in fairness I don't think the people on this board are criticizing Russell and Kat simply for having an opposite view from them. They are trying to make the case that they did this or that, or that they presented their view in a way which would alienate people. The important thing for me is that they didn't go into the "Free Speech Cage" when told to and were willing to be arrested for their beliefs.

 

[ctdonath]

Yup. I don't object to their views; I object to them making asses of themselves in public, disgracing their movments, portraying their views as "supid extremists" in the public eye, and generally wrecking any opportunity for the constructionist movement to take hold. Seriously: what is the public view of the Libertarian and Free State movements? legalizing crack and state secession! yeah, that goes far to gain public support.

If the guy had been waving a "Restore the Bill Of Rights" sign, perhaps all would have gone well ... but definitely not with a "Seceed!" sign.

 

[gezzer]

Welcome to NH, now go Home!

Folks wonder why the are not liked by natives come in preaching and stirring up stuff, NH is not libertarian it is Conservative, don't shove your libertarian ideas down our throats we DO NOT like it any more than MA Democrats trying the same thing with their agendas.

Try living here and spending some time in town politics before trying to change the whole State. Why do you think the influx of MA folks (Won’t say what they are called by natives) haven’t changed anything as much as they want to.
:banghead:

 

[gezzer]

Free Stater explain this.

NY times 2/25/2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/national/25loving.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

"The goal, said an e-mail message attributed to a group member, was to move in enough Libertarians "to control the local government and remove oppressive regulations (such as planning and zoning, and building code requirements) and stop enforcement of laws prohibiting victimless acts among consenting adults such as dueling, gambling, incest, price-gouging, cannibalism and drug handling."
Leading the effort, the material showed, was Lawrence Edward Pendarvis, a computer analyst from Brandon, Fla., and operator of a Philippine mail-order-bride Web site who has run into a storm of opposition for trying to establish a similar "Free State Project" in Grafton, N.H. He was convicted in Florida in 1997 of downloading child pornography, but the charges were overturned on appeal due to a prosecutorial error."

GO HOME if this is your agenda.

 

[spartacus2002]

"The goal, said an e-mail message attributed to a group member, was to move in enough Libertarians "to control the local government and remove oppressive regulations (such as planning and zoning, and building code requirements) and stop enforcement of laws prohibiting victimless acts among consenting adults such as dueling, gambling, incest, price-gouging, cannibalism and drug handling."

Sounds like someone has a mole inside the FSP, engaging in monkeywrenching. I don't doubt that the FSP has some "extremists", but cannibalism? Dueling? Whoever sent that email actually intends the FSP to fail.

 

[DadaOrwell2]

Gezzer thanks for the suggestions. If you're a conservative, by definition that means you'd disagree with 20 or 30% of what the average libertarian or free stater believes and agree with the other 70 or 80%. With liberals it's the other way around. Of course it's people who almost agree with each other who are always at each other's throats. I guess that's just how human nature works.

In answer to your questions Pendarvis is still in Florida I think, and I don't think he's moving here. He got sort of a threatening letter from some local LP guys in '03 or '04 and I believe the FSP expelled him from membership.

And of course libertarians want to get the government out of the business of punishing victimless crimes, popular or not that's no secret!

 

[Manedwolf]

And of course libertarians want to get the government out of the business of punishing victimless crimes, popular or not that's no secret!

Define "victimless crimes", please?

NH has a low crime rate and a traditional-values culture. Do we want anything "decriminalized" that will change that?

Hell no.

And as to whether that guy moves here, if he does, I will PERSONALLY make sure his home is clearly marked on the NH sexual predator listing and his neighbors informed. We don't want that sort. At all.

 

[Grey54956]

Not that I want to be a total jerkface or anything, but:

To all the folks who think that "free speech zones" are not out of line with our country's principles, I would ask what is the difference between these and the "Gun Free Zones" around schools, churches, goverment offices, and several large metropolitan areas? After all, these were also erected for the safety of the public and elected officials.

The resitriction of freedom is anethma to our country. If you don't think so, I invite you to leave. Go somewhere else, perhaps France or England.

So what if a few hippies want to protest, that's what they do, and that's just fine. And as far as the Commander-In-Chief's safety is concerned, it is a dangerous job. Everybody knows that going into it. Sometimes, elected officials get shot. It happens. It's not good, but history is littered with the bodies of slain leaders, often at the hands of the radical, the insane, or the enemies of the state. In fact, most countries where this doesn't seem to happen from time to time, are those police states that crack down on the people, deny them basic human rights, and rule by strength of arms and not by the will of the people.

It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs that we find ourselves confined to "free speech zones".

 

[Glock Glockler]

Manedwolf,

As a libertarian who is also a NH resident, I'd like to see the WoD go the way of the Dodo as well as licensing laws, minimum wage laws, gun laws etc. In general, I probably feel pretty similar to you about govt. I don't child molesters or rapists in my state either.

Dada,

How does it feel to have the people who should be welcoming and supporting you telling you to go home?

Did it occur to you that you're doing something wrong if this is the reaction you're getting? Your comment about human nature is just an excuse for your own failure to convince other people that want less govt that FSPers are good people to move in.

Do you intend to actually repeal stupid laws in NH or do you just want to be cool by causing a bunch of controversy?

 

[ArmedBear]

Gezzer thanks for the suggestions. If you're a conservative, by definition that means you'd disagree with 20 or 30% of what the average libertarian or free stater believes and agree with the other 70 or 80%. With liberals it's the other way around.

That statement could only be made by someone who does not...

1. Earn a decent living.
2. Have a business or want one.
3. Own property.
4. Believe in the right to self-defense.
5. Think the market can solve most problems.
6. Believe that individual freedom should trump collective power over the individual.

On the whole...

"Liberals" in this country -- and the word is misused -- currently support coercive seizure of earned wealth, coercive public use of private property without compensation (using endangered species as an excuse), punitive tax rates, no private ownership of defensive firearms, high taxes on energy and coercive government market manipulation in energy and whatever else is trendy, pseudo-governmental power given to labor unions, protectionism, and an ever-larger more coercive government on every level. They support gay marriage -- not deregulation of marriage, just an additional class who is afforded the privelege. They support SLIGHT decriminalization of some drugs (but evidently 20 year mandatory sentences for digging tunnels), and an absolute right to abortion, no matter how late in the pregnancy, with money taken coercively available to fund it. Liberals support giving the unelected UN a great deal of power over American citizens.

"Conservatives" in this country currently support laws against drug use, putting a stop to the gay marriage movement, a ban on abortion, private property rights, gun rights, a free market, taxes only insofar as necessary and not for the purpose of massive market manipulation, limited government, limited Federal involvement in local government activities like schools, and individual rights over collective rights. Conservatives oppose letting the UN dictate US policy, either foreign or domestic.

Neither side supports radical changes in national defense. Opposing some new weapons project for the political hay you can make is hardly the equivalent of returning to a system of limited foreign involvement and strong volunteer militias.

Neither side supports decriminalizing drug use or trade.

Modern American "liberals" are generally economic Marxists and social trendies -- their many laws governing behavior and possession can hardly be called libertarian.

Modern American "conservatives" are generally economic libertarians and social trendies, but following different trends.

Neither supports free trade with limited other foreign involvement.

Neither supports individual liberty as its first principle; liberals, however, as marxists, tend to see things collectively and seldom in terms of individual freedom at all, except for trendy social causes like gay marriage.

Neither side supports the freedom to have an abortion and the concurrent freedom to not be forced to pay for abortions you find morally wrong.

Liberals seem far more interested in forcing Conservatives to accept their social trends than in actually supporting individual freedom. Conservatives seem to have certain areas where they don't believe in individual choices.

The Bush administration takes flak from Conservatives for not BEING conservative (except for the social trend crap) so don't bother laying out Bush policies as a Conservative roadmap.

If you really find yourself agreeing with Marxists 70-80% of the time, you might want to do a few things.

1. Leave the Free State Movement before you do more damage to libertarians.
2. Subscribe to Reason and read Tech Central Station, starting with all of Arnold Kling's works.
3. Read other libertarian written works, and some critiques of Marxism.

 

[DadaOrwell2]

From NHfree.com

Manchester, NH
6/2/06

Bearing pitchforks, signs and pistols, twenty-five demonstrators got what they were after Friday at Manchester District Court.

The City of Manchester decided to drop charges against two libertarian activists its officers arrested in February.

Russell Kanning and Kat Dillon of Keene were carrying anti-Federal signs on Feb. 8 at a bus stop across the street from the Radisson Hotel, where President Bush was later scheduled to speak. Secret Service agents, then Manchester Police, ordered them to move into a nearby "Free Speech Zone" where demonstrators were being herded. They refused and were promptly arrested.

City solicitor Gregg Muller told reporters he dropped the case because he did not have a Secret Service agent he could call to testify against the couple.

Muller, Manchester Police and local Secret Service agents had been the brunt of unhappy phone calls and angry signs since the arrests occurred. Today's demonstrators sported placards reading "All NH is a Free Speech Zone" and sparred verbally with police, who seemed caught off guard by the size of the protest. Two attempted to enter the courthouse with pitchforks and were asked to check them in as weapons. Upon arriving at the security checkpoint, one demonstrator announced that he wished to check a firearm at the entrance, then shocked police by producing four pistols, butt first.

Manchester Police informed him that one of the guns was "suspicious" and called the ATF to report him. They then returned the weapon.

As for Dillon and Kanning, they have returned *home* and say they are invigorated by the experience. But Dillon says she has at least one gripe:

"No one apologized to us about the arrest."

Sources:

Union Leader: http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/kat_rus.pdf

NHfree.com forum discussion:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=670f13e36f6de0656b725827076a587b&topic=3063.315

 

[Manedwolf]

Upon arriving at the security checkpoint, one demonstrator announced that he wished to check a firearm at the entrance, then shocked police by producing four pistols, butt first.

Oh, GREAT. So they just gave Lynch more rhetoric to use against guns, and likely destroyed any chances we might have had for a legislative veto override of "stand your ground" SB 318.

What a bunch of dumb f....

DAMMIT! The antis will be ALL OVER THAT!

And you know what? The town I live in has lots of cemetaries with Revolutionary War fighters buried in them. We do not need OUTSIDERS moving in and telling us that they know better than the residents do "how to be free". You want to do that, GO TO MASSACHUSETTS.

Here's some quotes I found from residents about what they think about "free staters".

Libertarian doctrine dictates freedom for all, not to impose your will on others. What, then, are they doing in imposing their will on an entire town and state? And why are they surprised when we slap a “Free Staters Go Home” bumper sticker on our cars?'

The Free Towners who have been scouting out the town since its selection in February have, as a whole, been obnoxious, demanding and disrespectful. One actually stood at town meeting and accused a long-time resident of being a socialist.

Call me a xenophobe, but if you care at all about New Hampshire, you should do everything in your power to cause the Free Staters and Towners to abort their mission. They’re nothing but a selfish group of anarchist carpetbaggers whose sole purpose is to destroy a place and people they don’t give two hoots about.

I particularly like the last one. Free Stater = Anarchist Carpetbagger.

Get the picture? You're not welcome here.

 

[spartacus2002]

Looks like Boston T. Party was right about Wyoming. I was just out there in Wyoming for the FSW Jamboree and RWVA shoot; it seems to be rather more fertile ground for FSP. Of course, not making an ass of oneself helps,too.

 

[Revolver Justice]

I personally think that the President should carry the gun of his choosing and protect himself like the rest of us do. No man deserves extra protection or consideration just because of his job. The only deviation for me would be a minister, these are men who carry out the work of God. I have always belived the pastor of the local church deserves more respect than some politician.

 

[Manedwolf]

Looks like Boston T. Party was right about Wyoming. I was just out there in Wyoming for the FSW Jamboree and RWVA shoot; it seems to be rather more fertile ground for FSP. Of course, not making an ass of oneself helps,too.

Yes. The ivory-tower Yale professor who had this idea for the "free state" thing shows once again that many college professors have their heads jammed up their posterior.

Wyoming is a frontier state. Still "recently settled" in history. New Hampshire is a VERY OLD STATE, most of the towns date to the 1600's and 1700's, The culture is established. And one thing common to New Englanders, they do not take kindly to outsiders with attitudes.

You'd think the guy would have realized that, but then, most college campuses have no connection to reality.

 

[DadaOrwell2]

What is going on with Free State West these days Spartacus? I haven't heard much about them. Do you know if anyone has moved yet?

I used to think Wyoming was better than NH but it can be done either place. It's apparently a lot harder to get people to move to WY, but on the other hand it's more conservative which is mostly good.

Christian Exodus in South Carolina seems to be doing ok; they claim 30 movers and 150 members in-state only a couple years after forming up the organization. That's about where the Free Staters were in 2004. Looks like about 450 free staters in NH currently, around 150 having moved here since the state was picked in '03.

 

[Manedwolf]

You know, one of the reasons Lynch (D) was able to win the governorship in the first place, thus ensuring a lack of 2A protections, was that his campaign attack ads claimed that the incumbent Benson (R) had cooperated with and welcomed the "free staters".

So you know? Thanks a whole lot. So far, everything your people has touched has turned to manure.

Keep it up the "progress" with asinine public stunts that turn public opinion against guns and give opposing legislators more ammo, and we'll be Massachusetts 2.

But then your people can just leave the state they wrecked and go elsewhere, right?

 

[DRZinn]

The ivory-tower Yale professor who had this idea for the "free state" thing shows once again that many college professors have their heads jammed up their posterior.

And you show once again that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. The state was chosen by the membership.

I'm not sure why you hate the idea so much of someone coming into your state and trying to make it more free. If liberty is good, then why would it matter where advocates for liberty come from?

I'm not heavily involved in the FSP, but it seems to me there are a few crackpots making the rest look bad. Don't paint them all with the same brush.

 

[Manedwolf]

I'm not sure why you hate the idea so much of someone coming into your state and trying to make it more free. If liberty is good, then why would it matter where advocates for liberty come from?

Because it was PERFECTLY FREE ALREADY, thank you, and we LIKED IT AS IT WAS. How presumptious of you is it to assume that outsiders have to come in and "fix" it for us, as if we can't do it ourselves?!

Oh, yeah, and,

And you show once again that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. The state was chosen by the membership.

Here you go. Want more citations about the guy who had the shades-of-Lenin idea in the first place? Jason Sorens, Ph.D, professor at Yale.

NASHUA, N.H. (AP) - Now that more than 5,400 people have committed to moving New Hampshire for the Free State Project, members are getting into the nuts and bolts of how the newcomers can be most effective.

The project, led by a Yale University political science lecturer, aims to bring 20,000 liberty-minded people to New Hampshire in the next five years...

28-year-old Jason Sorens is founder of The Free State Project (FSP) which has focused on recruiting active libertarians to move to a single state of the U.S. - New Hampshire - where research indicates that they could control state politics if they arrive in sufficient numbers and are active enough.

Jason first wrote about the "free state" strategy in a July 2001 column in The Libertarian Enterprise. Within a week after the essay appeared, over 200 people emailed him, eager to put the strategy into action. Thus was the Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org) born.

By August 2003, over 5,000 people had signed onto the Project, and they voted on New Hampshire as their new home. When those who had opted out of New Hampshire were removed from the rolls, only 4,000 participants remained, but the FSP is now back over 6,300 signed-up members.