What is FSP???

imported post

Please excuse my ignorance and enlighten me as is to what the Free State Project is. What are the goals both long term and short? And is it only a New Hampshire organization?

A little back story so prepare your best speech you may have a new member...

I was a young lad of only three or four when my parents moved me up to PA from NC. I very much loved NC and want desprately to return. I am currently working as a Coorperate Asset Protection Officer. It is my hopes to invest enough time in my current job to gain some credibility and references as well as job experience. Ithen want toproceed to attend a Police Academy and further my profession as a LEO. (I hope Idon't catch to much flack for that.)My Fiance has two years left in College to obtain a teaching degree in secondary ed (high school). Upon her completion of college it was our goal to move from PA to NC. However after reviewing the Carry Laws in NC and some other issues my mind has been altered. VA has opened itself up to a possibility but we have not made any ultimate decisions. The only thing written in stone is leaving PA.

A couple days ago I stumbled up the FSP site and was enticed. But I am confused about some of the finer details. Would somebody please help me sort out the details? And just how perfect is NH for a guy who likes to OC a lot and enjoys hunting and the beach???

imported post

Scroogle might be your friend.

imported post

Why not ask THEM? I've only found out about it this past week and I've spending almost all my free time researching it. Recommended resources:

http://freestateproject.org/ (of course)

http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RidleyReport

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=TackleTheWorld

imported post

http://www.freestateproject.com

Feel free to drop by the discussion forums if you are interested in getting to know us or learning more.

Basically, the sole goal of the FSP is to get 20,000 liberty-minded people to move to NH for the purpose of minimizing government. It's a pretty broad goal, and there's no set method for acheiving that - some are becoming politically active, others prefer civil disobedience tactics.

As for OC - NH is great. The only place the state prohibits OC (and CCW) is in courthouses - federal laws still apply (i.e. post offices, etc). And if you like having CCW as an option, it's super easy to get one. I think the law requires the license to be issued within 10 days of application, and if it's not they gotta answer in court why they didn't.

Now, although NH is great, there's still some work needed. Some of the LEOs still don't respect these rights fully. You don't really have to worry about getting shot or arrested, but they do occasionally stop OC'ers. I think that's mostly because people can get CCW licenses so easily that they just don't see OC that often.

Hope I answered your questions, and I hope to see you posting over on the forums.

imported post

WhiteFeather,

No need to apologize for ignorance...I also am because I still don't know whatthe FSP is REALLYall about.

Yeah, the "Free State Project" seems to be pretty nice"grassroots liberty" concept on the surface, but it doesn'tpass muster looking at it only a tiny bit more closely...at least for me, anyway. And just being pro-gun doesn't cut it because I'm not a one-issue guy, so I need to consider the "whole package." I WAS one-issue a few years ago -- my pro-guns/RKBA stand was used to make political/social judgements -- but that was just myopic ignorance on my part.

I went to the FS site some time ago and couldn'tANYWHERE find details on what exactly the "Free Staters" are supposed to be about, I mean specifics, such aswhat "freedom loving" and "tolerant" really means -- how thesewords are defined -- in terms of what social/political/religious issues they are FOR and what they'd be AGAINST in their personal beliefs and voting; I just see general sweeping statements but no particulars. And although they say they're not associated with any political party -- such as Libertarians --x-number of members (don't know exactly how many) ARE Libertarians...so it sounds like a very Libertarian movement to me.

Which means besides being "tolerant" re: gun issues, the Free Statemembership is probably also quite tolerant of other social/political issues I personally would notAT ALLwant to be a part of...but I have to guess, again,because there is no list of "beliefs" or "platform" given.

I would want to see a statement which would include just exactly WHERE the Free Staters stand re: the several important social/cultural issues presenlty facing America today. Without that, and considering the apparenly Libertarian leanings, *I* woudn't be moving to NH anytime soon.

But that's just me...

-- John D.

imported post

As past FSP president Amanda Phillips said, "you can't centrally plan freedom."

The particulars are, as you may have seen, to work for a society where the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.

How each individual person goes about that process is up to them.

You don't have to be "part of" anything you don't want to be part of in order to state your intent to move to New Hampshire and work to shrink the scope of government power.

My wife and I were the first people to permanently relocate to New Hampshire after it was chosen, as it happens, and I've been working on the gun issue via my participation in Gun Owners of New Hampshire. I haven't gotten involved in a lot of other liberty issues that other folks are working on - the nice thing is, though, that there's actually people leading and working on them.

As for the "social issues..."

Why should the government have any role in defining, sanctioning, and licensing what used to be a private religious ceremony - i.e., marriage? The reason they do, like the medieval jus primae noctis, is because it's part and parcel of the government's system of controls, their carrots and sticks that they dangle before us or whack us with, in the form of the tax system. Should the government really be in the business of social engineering - of attempting to force or cajole us into living in a way that other people approve of?

Why should the government have any say on what two or more consenting adults do with or for or to each other in the privacy of their own homes? Why should they have any concern beyond sales or excise taxes as to whether money changes hands?

The government already runs some of the biggest, lowest-vig (ripoff vig, in fact, that would embarass the mafia) gambling operations in the world, so why, other than preserving its illegitamate monopoly, should it criminalize private or commercial gambling?

Why should the government have any say as to what chemicals one chooses to ingest? The ridiculous "trans fat" bans, and the other "unhealthy food" bans that are sure to follow on their heels, are a direct outgrowth of the prohibitionist attitude that has grown like a cancer among politicians and cops during the War on Some Drugs. Same story with mandatory seatbelt laws that we're still fighting here in NH. And has anyone ever explained why they needed an Amendment to ban booze, but not to ban pot?

In other words, John D., before writing off other facets of the precious gem of liberty that make you uncomfortable, you should dig a little deeper and try to identify the reason for your discomfort. Are you sure it's based on facts, logic, and reason?

imported post

Thank you for your response...the FSP is just as I suspected.

-- John D.

imported post

mvpel wrote:

As for the "social issues..."

Why should the government have any role in defining, sanctioning, and licensing what used to be a private religious ceremony - i.e., marriage? The reason they do, like the medieval jus primae noctis, is because it's part and parcel of the government's system of controls, their carrots and sticks that they dangle before us or whack us with, in the form of the tax system. Should the government really be in the business of social engineering - of attempting to force or cajole us into living in a way that other people approve of?

Why should the government have any say on what two or more consenting adults do with or for or to each other in the privacy of their own homes? Why should they have any concern beyond sales or excise taxes as to whether money changes hands?

The government already runs some of the biggest, lowest-vig (ripoff vig, in fact, that would embarass the mafia) gambling operations in the world, so why, other than preserving its illegitamate monopoly, should it criminalize private or commercial gambling?

Why should the government have any say as to what chemicals one chooses to ingest? The ridiculous "trans fat" bans, and the other "unhealthy food" bans that are sure to follow on their heels, are a direct outgrowth of the prohibitionist attitude that has grown like a cancer among politicians and cops during the War on Some Drugs. Same story with mandatory seatbelt laws that we're still fighting here in NH. And has anyone ever explained why they needed an Amendment to ban booze, but not to ban pot?

In other words, John D., before writing off other facets of the precious gem of liberty that make you uncomfortable, you should dig a little deeper and try to identify the reason for your discomfort. Are you sure it's based on facts, logic, and reason?

Click to expand...

Very well put, though I think it will probably be lost on most subscribing to the two-party system. Or at least the American two-party system. Let's face it: the current system is based on religion and wealth. If you're a Christian and you're relatively wealthy, you're a Republican. If you're not particularly religious, and you want free money from the government, you're a Democrat. Anyone else is an "independent" because neither political party is beneficial to their position.

Personally, I feel it's very hypocritical to support freedom of gun ownership, but then think the government should regulate the bedroom and the rest of a person's private life. But, on the other hand, I feel it's also very hypocritical to be against private gun ownership, but then support every other individual freedom. It's a horrible, horrible system that we have now, and due to the processes in place in relation to elections, there is next to no chance that a large part of the American population will wake up to how shamefully inconsistant the Democrat/Republican system is.

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

Thank you for your response...the FSP is just as I suspected.

-- John D.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what that's supposed to mean, since the FSP has fairly limited and specific goals, and I am speaking for myself and only myself in the post above, but in any case...

Frederick Douglass wrote:

Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will.

Click to expand...

... and...

H. L. Mencken wrote:

I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave.

Click to expand...

Mencken also wrote, "the average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe."

Regardless of what their pet projects for individual liberty are, or whether I agree with them on every last point or nuance of their philosophy, I am very proud and honored to be associated with the well-above-average liberty activists here in New Hampshire.

imported post

Basically, the sole goal of the FSP is to get 20,000 liberty-minded people to move to NH for the purpose of minimizing government. It's a pretty broad goal, and there's no set method for acheiving that - some are becoming politically active, others prefer civil disobedience tactics.

Click to expand...

So what happens when they reach 20,000? Is that a number that would provide them with a majority vote in their respective offices? It does state that they are not a political party. The large marjority of members thus far are Libratarian and if I signed up I would only add to that number. But I would have to say what confuses me is that they picked a state that seems perfect from the get go. So what are they trying to change about it? Is this some type of experiment?

Correct me if I'm wrong but from an outsiders view it looks like an attempt is being made to achieve a number of voters to influence politicians to create a utopia for like minded people. But their site appears to state different. I am very much liking what I'm seeing. But I just can't seem to understand what the goal is.

imported post

WhiteFeather wrote:

So what happens when they reach 20,000? Is that a number that would provide them with a majority vote in their respective offices? It does state that they are not a political party. The large marjority of members thus far are Libratarian and if I signed up I would only add to that number. But I would have to say what confuses me is that they picked a state that seems perfect from the get go. So what are they trying to change about it? Is this some type of experiment?

Click to expand...

NH is one of the freest places on Earth; however, there is plenty of room to improve. Part of the reason NH was chosen is because it makes our goals attainable. Choosing a place like CA, for example, would be pointless.

Correct me if I'm wrong but from an outsiders view it looks like an attempt is being made to achieve a number of voters to influence politicians to create a utopia for like minded people. But their site appears to state different. I am very much liking what I'm seeing. But I just can't seem to understand what the goal is.

Click to expand...

Here's the best explanation for the 20,000 figure that I can offer. I think, as do many others, that 20,000 is overkill. With less than 500 participants moved so far, there has already been some considerable ground covered: education reform, repeal of the smoking ban, etc.

The underlying idea is that we have strength in numbers. That number may be 20,000; it may be 5,000.