Shanek will be my neighbor...

[kittynh]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031001/ap_on_re_us/free_state_project


AUGH!!!!!!!

[shanek]

Sorry, Kitty, but as I said in another thread, I won't be participating. I'm not optimistic about their chances of success, and I've come too far where I am to stop now.

[Tony]

Why arent you optimistic about their chances of success?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
Why arent you optimistic about their chances of success?

Because I don't think a simple concentration of Libertarians in one area will do much to combat the roadblocks the Democrats and Republicans have put up to prevent competing parties from getting on the ballot and getting elected.

[Jude]

What do you think the best course of action would be then, Shanek? The Free State folks seem awfully desperate for solutions.

[Larspeart]

I am very interested in how they do, and I support them 100%. My fingers are crossed that at the very least, things will work out well for them, and will show that a Libertarian-Lite State CAN work, and work well.

Good Luck Free State folks!

[Tony]

I doubt that the freestate project will work. The nanny state government exerts too much control over the states via federal funding.

[arcticpenguin]

Perhaps a smaller country would be a better place to give it a try then; an island for isolation from neighbor states.
...
Cuba?

[kittynh]

well, I heard on NPR that New Hampshire has the lowest rate of poverty. It's pretty much a low tax local control type of state now. So I think people will be open to their ideas. School vouchers? Probably not before my kids graduate...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Because I don't think a simple concentration of Libertarians in one area will do much to combat the roadblocks the Democrats and Republicans have put up to prevent competing parties from getting on the ballot and getting elected.

"Divide and conquer", eh? :rolleyes:

It is obvious how far Libertarians have gotten so far with their present strategy. Nowhere.

Gee, I wonder why that is. People are just stoopid, right?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


"Divide and conquer", eh? :rolleyes:

It is obvious how far Libertarians have gotten so far with their present strategy. Nowhere.

Gee, I wonder why that is. People are just stoopid, right?

Do I sense an appeal to popularity hiding in there, CFL?

:halo:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Do I sense an appeal to popularity hiding in there, CFL?

:halo:

Nope. Democracy in action.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jude
What do you think the best course of action would be then, Shanek? The Free State folks seem awfully desperate for solutions.

Lobbying for fair election access like we did here in NC this past year, for one. We had the support of a number of NC House members, and it only ended up failing because the speakers conspired to keep it off the floor.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Nope. Democracy in action.

Just teasing.

N/A

[Zep]

Hmmmmm....

A bunch of people of like-minded political persuasion gather together en masse and go invade another place that is already quite happy with its own way of life, with the intention of radically changing said way of life.

What an original and compelling concept... :nope:

[Mercutio]

I must say, I don't recall inviting them. Kittynh, did you? Shemp?

[Dancing David]

Hey there are some places in Central Illinois where they could totaly dominate county politics with that kind of electorate, would they want to live in rural Illinois, most of the values are there already, except for a large state government.

[Malachi151]

Well, I think they will be moderately successful.

Here is why:

#1 if they are able to domnate the state's politcal arena then they will be able to get things done. This does not really matter what type of group you are, if you really wna tot make things better and you have a solid group with major suport you will be successful. If the Socialist Party invaded and did the ssame thing I think they could make that work too, its all about getting the political power to actually make your agenda work.

#2 They picked the state with the fewest problems to deal with. Its a small affluent state with a a very homogenius population and few social or fiscal problems to start with.

#3 They can't do anything about the federal government, and they will end up basically reaping the rewards of the federal government without contributing themselves. Essentially they will piggy back on the efforts of the rest of the nation.

My question si this, will they stick to a libertarian agenda and policy even if it is proving not to be the best choice?

If they go in and don't actually impliment a libertarian system, but instead just clean house, then that will likely be successful, the problem is it won't prove anything about libertarianism.

Legalizing drugs, while a great idea, I think is a disaster if you only do it on a state by state basis. People will flock there like its Amsterdam, whereas if it were done nationaly then there would be no mass concentration of problems.

Secondly I think that legalizing drugs will require heavy government regulation, and if they follow libertarian thinking then I think that will be a disaster and may hurt the potential for a larger drug legalization movement.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151
People will flock there like its Amsterdam...

Would that be a bad thing?

New Hampshire could become the next hot tourist destination in America, kind of like the next Las Vegas. It would be good for their economy.

[Malachi151]

I love this from their FAQ:

. Why don't we try "taking over" a city, a county, a group of counties, or a foreign country?

A. Counties do have some substantial powers, but states have even more powers, including control over most sales, income, and property taxes, control of the state police, and full control over statewide legislation. State legislatures have absolute authority over counties and towns: they can alter, abolish, and overrule them at will. At the same time, it would be more difficult to get a few hundred people to move to a single county than to get a few thousand people to move to a single state. As larger territories, states have more diverse economies & communities than counties. Trying to break off a group of counties to form a new state would not work. The Constitution requires the Congress and state legislature to approve the creation of any new state, and that would not happen. "Taking over" a foreign country would be too difficult & costly. We couldn't get a lot of people to move there, and then we'd have to get citizenship.

LOL, so the free staters want to control and overrule.. hmm.. sounds suspicious to me :p

[Evolver]

The Libertarians are coming! Bar the doors! Phone the neighbors! Wake the kids!
http://mandrake.net/pictures/random_site_pics/images/Watch.jpg

[kittynh]

That cat has a perfect right to own and carry that gun.

If you legalize drugs here I'll probably go buy my cats guns, and redo my will in their favor. Heck, I'll start talking to the dead and trading recipes with them.

Actually, shanek seems like he would be a great neighbor. Also, bring wads of cash, housing is expensive here.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by kittynh
Also, bring wads of cash, housing is expensive here.

You think it's bad there. Try moving down one state.:(

[Malachi151]

This should get them riled up :)

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=3679

[xouper]

Malachi151: This should get them riled up :):tr:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I must say, I don't recall inviting them. Kittynh, did you? Shemp?

One needs an invitation to come to your state? When did NH turn Communist?

[KelvinG]

I'm not a libertarian but if it means easy access to drugs and hookers I'm there.:D

Only to visit of course. I wouldn't want to live in a state run by libertarians. But some of the fringe benefits might be nice on a vacation.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG
I'm not a libertarian but if it means easy access to drugs and hookers I'm there.:D

Yes that's what it means. :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
One needs an invitation to come to your state? When did NH turn Communist?

Since when do you need an invitation to move to a Communist state?

Getting in is no problem. Getting out is. Perhaps you should do a little investgation, so you know what you are talking about, before you complain about communism.... :rolleyes:

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Since when do you need an invitation to move to a Communist state?

Getting in is no problem. Getting out is. Perhaps you should do a little investgation, so you know what you are talking about, before you complain about communism.... :rolleyes:

Roll those eyes right back. Entering a "communist" country uninvited you could find yourself with a bullet in the head.

To test it out, try an enter North Korea.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Roll those eyes right back. Entering a "communist" country uninvited you could find yourself with a bullet in the head.

To test it out, try an enter North Korea.

Ummm... several Americans went to the USSR during the 1950s - 1980s.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Roll those eyes right back. Entering a "communist" country uninvited you could find yourself with a bullet in the head.

To test it out, try an enter North Korea.

Please note that I did not refer to crossing the border illegally. I said "move". It would be nice if you:

1) Could reply to what I wrote.
2) Acknowledged that you are wrong. People have moved to communist countries.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Please note that I did not refer to crossing the border illegally.

Then you need an invitation; i.e., you need someone's permission to come in.

[xouper]

CFLarsen: People have moved to communist countries.Without getting permission first? Interesting.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Then you need an invitation; i.e., you need someone's permission to come in.

Sorry, two different things:

Webster.com:
=============================================
Invitation:
1 a : the act of inviting b : an often formal request to be present or participate
2 : INCENTIVE, INDUCEMENT
=============================================
Permission:
1 : the act of permitting
2 : formal consent : AUTHORIZATION
=============================================
Permit:
1 : to consent to expressly or formally <permit access to records>
2 : to give leave : AUTHORIZE
3 : to make possible
=============================================

Originally posted by xouper
Without getting permission first? Interesting.

Where did I claim that permission was not obtained?

Can anyone point to specific legislation in communist countries (former, too) that bar/has barred people from moving there?

Has people moved to communist countries, yes or no?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Sorry, two different things:

Not in this discussion. The complaint involved Libertarians moving to NH without "being invited," "given permission," or however you want to put it. They're just moving there.

[xouper]

CFLarsen: Where did I claim that permission was not obtained?Apparently we have some misunderstanding here about word usage, which is totally understandable given the international nature of the forum membership.

When Shane used the word "invitation", I interpreted that as a euphemism for "permission". That was immediately obvious to me, but apparently not obvious to everyone.

When someone uses the word invitation (such as Mercutio did), there is an implied notion that without the invitation, there is no permission either. For example, when the doorman at a private gathering or party decides who to let in, he checks for an invitation. If the person doesn't have one, then by default they do not have permission to get in.

Does this help explain why the word "invitation" can be used as a euphemism for "permission"? If Shane had used the word permission instead of invitation, then we wouldn't be discussing this point. But since Mercutio used "invite" that's what Shane used, even though Shane meant "permission", as he later clarified

Can anyone point to specific legislation in communist countries (former, too) that bar/has barred people from moving there?That wasn't the claim Shane was making.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by xouper
Without getting permission first? Interesting.

With the exception of illigal immigration you have to get permission to move to America as well. So what is your point?

People get deported from America or thrown in jails for being here without permission all the time, it happens every day.

[xouper]

I forgot to add -

When you apply to a communist country for permission to move there, they will send you the permission papers. This can euphemistically be referred to as your "invitation", your "get in the door free card". Perhaps that's not standard (pedantic) dictionary usage, but there you have it. :)

[xouper]

Malachi151: With the exception of illigal immigration you have to get permission to move to America as well. So what is your point?Malachi, please try to focus your attention on what the conversation is actually about instead of getting tangled up in irrelevant nuances.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by xouper
Malachi, please try to focus your attention on what the conversation is actually about instead of getting tangled up in irrelevant nuances.

LOL, you mean, stop pointing out the flaws in your statements :D LOL

[Malachi151]

THE BEST LIBERTARIAN QUOTE EVER!

I finally made one of them crack :D

Here it is:

Freedom made America great and it hasn't stopped, it's just been steadily declining since the Civil War.

http://freestatecafe.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=149&PN=1&TPN=1

Yes folks, Libertarinaism has been exposed for its true self.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
THE BEST LIBERTARIAN QUOTE EVER!

I finally made one of them crack :D

Here it is:

http://freestatecafe.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=149&PN=1&TPN=1

Yes folks, Libertarinaism has been exposed for its true self.

Okay, I give. How did he "crack"? It seems to me he remained objective and level-headed throughout the exchange. Or is it that you just have no answer for his many points?

I notice you're still going on about your claims about the Great Depression even after you were shown in this forum how wrong they were. What do we call that again?....

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek

I notice you're still going on about your claims about the Great Depression even after you were shown in this forum how wrong they were. What do we call that again?....

I believe that matches the definition of a bigot, someone who is intolerably or irrationally attached to their own prejudices and pre-conceived notion.

[xouper]

Malachi151: LOL, you mean, stop pointing out the flaws in your statements :D LOLYou have not pointed out any flaw in any of my statements. If you think you have, then you have completely missed the point and are arguing against a straw man of your own making. You're not fooling anyone on this board with your game, Malachi. Go troll somewhere else.

[Larspeart]

There is no point in feeding a troll guys.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by xouper
You have not pointed out any flaw in any of my statements. If you think you have, then you have completely missed the point and are arguing against a straw man of your own making. You're not fooling anyone on this board with your game, Malachi. Go troll somewhere else.

Well yes, this is getting stupid.

You infered that you had to get permission to move to a communist country, which you then inferred meant that control of immigration was a "communist idea", or some such.

I simply pointed out that you had to get permission to move to any country, even the US, so the fact that you had to get permission to move to a "communist" country is meaningless.
And of course I was not talking "just" to you, yours was the reply I just decided to quote after reading down the line of several other people who said similar things.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I simply pointed out that you had to get permission to move to any country, even the US, so the fact that you had to get permission to move to a "communist" country is meaningless.
And of course I was not talking "just" to you, yours was the reply I just decided to quote after reading down the line of several other people who said similar things.

But we're not talking about moving to another country! We're talking about moving from one place to another within a country!

[xouper]

Malachi151: You infered that you had to get permission to move to a communist country, which you then inferred meant that control of immigration was a "communist idea", or some such.Control of "immigration" between American states is certainly not an American notion. Your objection has missed the point, and therefore meaningless.

Stepping back and taking a look at the bigger picture here, I think Mercutio's comment that the Libertarians weren't "invited" to NH was made tongue-in-cheek, or at least partly. I mean, get real, who in their right mind thinks Mercutio was totally serious? Likewise, I think Shane's comment was also made in that spirit. And then the anti-libertarians got their underwear in a bunch, and off we went, chasing pointless points. Kinda comical if you ask me. :)

[Malachi151]

*sigh* well this is stupid, but here goes:

shanek:
One needs an invitation to come to your state? When did NH turn Communist?

Implication that needing an invitation to move somewhere is "communist"

CFLarsen:
Since when do you need an invitation to move to a Communist state?

Grammatron:
Entering a "communist" country uninvited you could find yourself with a bullet in the head.

Further supporting the implication that you can't move to a Communist *country* (see how the coversation changes) without getting killed.

(Note that people trying to enter the US illigally do get shot and killed also)

CFLarsen:
Please note that I did not refer to crossing the border illegally. I said "move". It would be nice if you:

1) Could reply to what I wrote.
2) Acknowledged that you are wrong. People have moved to communist countries.

Yes, quite so, and of course now the conversation has continued on in regard to communist countries.

shanek:
Then you need an invitation; i.e., you need someone's permission to come in.

Continues on with conversation about countries, and did not choose to correct CFLarsen and tell him the conversation was not about countries, i.e. you accept the change in coversation.

And BTW, again, you need permission to move to the US as well, or any other country that I know of. In fact you often need a sponcer, i.e. an invitation.

xouper:
CFLarsen: People have moved to communist countries

Without getting permission first? Interesting.

Clearly xouper is discussing COUNTRIES, as he just quoted the statement about countries.

To which I reply:

With the exception of illigal immigration you have to get permission to move to America as well. So what is your point?

People get deported from America or thrown in jails for being here without permission all the time, it happens every day.

Which is a true statement that points out the fallcy of all the above logic by shanek, xouper, and Grammatron, to which the reply to me is that I'm: trolling, off topic, and don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Hmm... okay, you be the judge :rolleyes:

Obviously you guys have some real personal issues, insecurities, or whatever, I don't know, but obviously having any kind of logical conversation here is impossible at this point because any time I post anything it turn into a personal attack of the most illogical sort.

[xouper]

Malachi151: ... Continues on with conversation about countries, and did not choose to correct CFLarsen and tell him the conversation was not about countries, i.e. you accept the change in coversation.You have a point there, albeit a miniscule one. The talk about countries was getting off topic and it was not corrected immediately. But it has since been corrected and now all is well. Thanks for playing.

[xouper]

Malachi151: ... any time I post anything it turn into a personal attack of the most illogical sort.You certainly like to exaggerate. Besides, your hands aren't entirely clean either. Your reputation precedes your participation in this thread.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Implication that needing an invitation to move somewhere is "communist"

The only countries I'm aware of where you need permission to move about inside the country are Communist countries. Cuba, for example.

(Although, in America it is starting to turn out that way, at least if you go there in an airplane.)

Continues on with conversation about countries, and did not choose to correct CFLarsen and tell him the conversation was not about countries,

You're a liar, as usual. I did indeed make that correction. Just because I didn't make it specifically to every single person making the mistake changes nothing. I didn't see any need to repeat myself.

[kittynh]

Shanek, I'm inviting you and any other member of the Libertarian party to move to NH. Just remember, property taxes here stink. And yes, I am the queen of NH, and am in charge of invites.

Bring chocolate!!!!!

[shanek]

Originally posted by kittynh
Shanek, I'm inviting you and any other member of the Libertarian party to move to NH.

Thank you! I personally will politely decline your invitation, but I'm glad you welcome lovers of liberty to the Live Free or Die state.

Just remember, property taxes here stink.

Actually, the ones I've researched are lower than mine.

And yes, I am the queen of NH, and am in charge of invites.

Bring chocolate!!!!!

Dark chocolate?

[kittynh]

For dark chocolate you can bring your cousins too!