The Granite State Gang

I totally would have gone up there with you Chris. I'm surprised you haven't relocated to Keene yet.

 Sure, we have a way to prevent presidential assassinations... by not having a president in the first place.

Cool article.  That "gang" sounds a lot like that gang of 230+ years ago: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Adams, et al.We are lucky to have such patriots here in Northern New England.  The best thing they do is point out the folly of enforcing victimless crimes -- cops should be fighting against violent criminals, not topless girls and peaceful pot smokers.  This is certainly something  everyone can agree on, right?  Right?!

 Your Bay State readers might be surprised to learn that open carry is also legal in MA -- the LTC-A (license to carry) isn't restricted to concealed carry, and no state law requires concealment. Of course, since it's a discretionary license that can be withdrawn for any reason (or no reason at all), so discretion is the better part of valor for those south of the line.Thanks for the article. Despite efforts to demonize the Free Staters, they're not so much trying to change New Hampshire, as to keep it what it has traditionally been: a fiercely independent stronghold of small government, local control, and MYOB-ism. 

He spelled my name wrong. How hard can it be to copy & paste? I sent him some pictures via email - and my email address and email signature say "Mike Barskey" - and he used a picture and credited "Mike Barsky." Sheesh. I think this is a great article, with the except for the 5th and 4th to last paragraphs. "… the lawlessness that FSP allies advocate…" What? I don't know anyone who advocates lawlessness. I know many who advocate voluntary law, private law, etc. "Yada, yada, yada." Are these not important issues? Even if they're not important to you, or to Faraone, it is condescending (at least!) to downplay such concerns as "yada yada." "… well, they haven't quite figured that one out yet." Of course not! No one has all the answers. Not even everyone has all the answers. Look at government: theoretically, everyone who is not anti-government is pro-government, yet government does not provide all the answers. Government creates at least as many problems as it tries to solve. Yet if someone advocates another method of social harmony (e.g., voluntaryism), they have to have all the answers or they way isn't valid or won't work? Bah. "[The FSP's] attempt to take over the state…" What? The FSP is doing no such thing, and as far as I know (and I know hundreds of "free staters" personally), no individual is planning such a thing, either. Also, Faraone says "the FSP movement, which, since 2004, has attracted 523 activists to the 'Live Free or Die' state." Why not also mention the 9000+ activists that the FSP movement has attracted to *commit* to move here?

This article is very unrepresentative of the FSP and nearly bashes and bruises our ideas in every sentence.

1. Keep Glenn Beck's conservative anti-Obama hate out of the Free State Project. It is just as hostile to liberty as the current status-quo. Kudos to Mark Edge's quote.
2. It is not exclusively paranoia for one not to cough up personal information. In fact I welcome privacy buffs.
3. A GOP state rep? We ain't all republican politicians. In fact many of us downright abhor them. Don't paint the group with such a broad brush.
4. The state secrecy privilege that our government continuously uses to hide torture memos, wiretap programs and the like gives it incredible immunity and power above and beyond the rule of law. Carrying a small bud of pot in one's hand like Carroll did is not lawlessness--nor do we advocate lawlessness--it is a ethical stand for a just rule of law that respects the free will of human beings. Gandhi explained that coercion cannot but lead to chaos and lawlessness in the end. We see this happening with our government's torture programs, wars without end and sureveillance programs. Liberty is the abscence of coercion. Liberty is what Free Staters advocate.

 Congratulations to the FSP and similar peacefull law-abiding citizens for exercising our constitutional rights, whether the whiners on the left like it or not. If we dont use them, we're sure to lose them.Mark in Michigan

This article is a good expose of these anarchist freaks. It's sad and pathetic that they seem to enjoy being exposed, because it gives their insane ideas more exposure to other misguided bunker-dwelling Luddites. Their plan to tear down society includes an unimaginable hell they would put in its place - no schools, all roads becoming toll roads, no speed limits, no food safety laws, no environmental protection laws, heroin meth and crack all legal and freely available (even to young children.) That needs to be exposed, too. Of course, these "individualists" (read: militia-types) will all deny that THEY individually hold these crazy views. It's only the OTHER crazies. Never THEM. Right. Don't you believe it. This group of individuals engages in GroupThink all the time. They just understand "plausible deniability," just like any covert military group does. The good news is that they've been a colossal failure in "taking over" the state (although the GOP is quickly being taken over by them, and that will force the GOP out of existence when voters get wind of their plans.) Again, great first step in exposing these nutters.

nhpoliticalguy is only looking at half the story. 1. No schools? I haven't met one Free Stater who believes we shouldn't have schools. There is a common belief among libertarians and minarchists that schools should not be operated by the government and that privately owned and operated schools always deliver a higher-quality service at a lower price (once you consider the concommitant reduction in taxes from eliminating public schools). When services are provided by businesses that need to do a good job or go out of business, those services are always better than services provided by a government that really has no incentive to improve quality and reduce overhead (since the government will continue to exist no matter how inefficiently it operates). 2. All roads becoming toll roads. All roads already are toll roads. You pay for them with your taxes. Want to save some money by living close to work and walking? You'll still have to pay for use of the roads, which you're not using. That's like having to pay an electric bill even though you've decided to live without electricity. It makes far more sense, both economically and intuitively, to pay only for the services you actually use. Then you can make decisions to optimize your own life by adjusting the balance of your consumption of various services. 3. No speed limits. I am not alone in my belief that it is wrong to punish someone for some offense that they have not yet committed. The ostensible purpose of speed limits is to reduce traffic fatalities. But if someone injures or kills someone else in a traffic accident, that's already a crime (with a clear victim), and there are serious consequences. Driving a vehicle at a high speed, while risky, should not be a crime because there is no demonstrable victim. Whose rights am I violating if I cruise down an empty highway at 3 AM at 100 mph? Until I actually hurt someone or damage someone's property, I have not infringed upon the rights of anyone. Speed limits are unnecessary because there is already great disincentive against driving in a manner that could put oneself at risk of accidentally harming someone and being held accountable for it. 4. Heroin, meth, and crack all legal. I don't know about freely available. Nothing is free. Freely tradeable in honest commerce? Sure. Again it's an issue of victims and rights. Whose rights am I violating if I ingest a drug? Who is the victim? One tenet of libertarianism is the principle of self-ownership: I own my own body, and since my body is my own property, I can damage or destroy that property if I wish. 5. No food safety laws. Right, we don't need them. Remember what happened to Jack-in-the-Box's reputation when they had that E. coli outbreak? Public opinion and reputation is everything. Also, have you ever heard of a thing called Consumer Reports? Over the years, they have accumulated considerable respect by performing and providing accurate reports of the quality of consumer products. There is no reason a private entity like Consumer Reports (or even multiple such grading and reporting companies) couldn't provide quality assessment of foods at grocery stores and restaurants. In fact, in a system with multiple competing grading and reporting agencies, there is *less* danger of fraud or bribery because there would be considerable reward for one's agency's exposing the misdeeds of its competitors. 6. No environmental protection laws. We already have the necessary legal framework to prosecute cases of environmental damage. If you harm the environment, you're damaging property that someone owns. They can sue you for that damage and force you to make reparations. Under libertarian philosophy, one of government's few just functions is the protection of property. I would define GroupThink as the acceptance of a widely held position or belief without independent, critical analysis of the merits of that belief. In my experience, Free Staters are extremely critical in their thinking, questioning everything. It just so happens that after their excruciating analysis, they find the principles of libertarianism to be internally consistent and morally acceptable. And sometimes they don't; I know people who have left the libertarian school of thought and become socialists. The point is that they think for themselves, and that, by definition, is the opposite of GroupThink. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the FSP as a colossal failure. They are getting pro-liberty ideas into the minds of the public, and they are getting elected to public office. This article fails to mention the other six FSP members who were elected to the NH state congress. They might not publicly advertise their affiliation with the FSP, but the pro-liberty, anti-coercion sentiment is there.

nhpoliticalguy is only looking at half the story. 1. No schools? I haven't met one Free Stater who believes we shouldn't have schools. There is a common belief among libertarians and minarchists that schools should not be operated by the government and that privately owned and operated schools always deliver a higher-quality service at a lower price (once you consider the concommitant reduction in taxes from eliminating public schools). When services are provided by businesses that need to do a good job or go out of business, those services are always better than services provided by a government that really has no incentive to improve quality and reduce overhead (since the government will continue to exist no matter how inefficiently it operates).

1. No schools? I haven't met one Free Stater who believes we shouldn't have schools. There is a common belief among libertarians and minarchists that schools should not be operated by the government and that privately owned and operated schools always deliver a higher-quality service at a lower price (once you consider the concommitant reduction in taxes from eliminating public schools). When services are provided by businesses that need to do a good job or go out of business, those services are always better than services provided by a government that really has no incentive to improve quality and reduce overhead (since the government will continue to exist no matter how inefficiently it operates).

I would define GroupThink as the acceptance of a widely held position or belief without independent, critical analysis of the merits of that belief. In my experience, Free Staters are extremely critical in their thinking, questioning everything. It just so happens that after their excruciating analysis, they find the principles of libertarianism to be internally consistent and morally acceptable. And sometimes they don't; I know people who have left the libertarian school of thought and become socialists. The point is that they think for themselves, and that, by definition, is the opposite of GroupThink.

 

 Sorry for the repeat.  This thing didn't seem like it was accepting my post.  I have a lot more...  2. All roads becoming toll roads. All roads already are toll roads. You pay for them with your taxes. Want to save some money by living close to work and walking? You'll still have to pay for use of the roads, which you're not using. That's like having to pay an electric bill even though you've decided to live without electricity. It makes far more sense, both economically and intuitively, to pay only for the services you actually use. Then you can make decisions to optimize your own life by adjusting the balance of your consumption of various services.

3. No speed limits. I am not alone in my belief that it is wrong to punish someone for some offense that they have not yet committed. The ostensible purpose of speed limits is to reduce traffic fatalities. But if someone injures or kills someone else in a traffic accident, that's already a crime (with a clear victim), and there are serious consequences. Driving a vehicle at a high speed, while risky, should not be a crime because there is no demonstrable victim. Whose rights am I violating if I cruise down an empty highway at 3 AM at 100 mph? Until I actually hurt someone or damage someone's property, I have not infringed upon the rights of anyone. Speed limits are unnecessary because there is already great disincentive against driving in a manner that could put oneself at risk of accidentally harming someone and being held accountable for it.

4. Heroin, meth, and crack all legal. I don't know about freely available. Nothing is free. Freely tradeable in honest commerce? Sure. Again it's an issue of victims and rights. Whose rights am I violating if I ingest a drug? Who is the victim? One tenet of libertarianism is the principle of self-ownership: I own my own body, and since my body is my own property, I can damage or destroy that property if I wish.

5. No food safety laws. Right, we don't need them. Remember what happened to Jack-in-the-Box's reputation when they had that E. coli outbreak? Public opinion and reputation is everything. Also, have you ever heard of a thing called Consumer Reports? Over the years, they have accumulated considerable respect by performing and providing accurate reports of the quality of consumer products. There is no reason a private entity like Consumer Reports (or even multiple such grading and reporting companies) couldn't provide quality assessment of foods at grocery stores and restaurants. In fact, in a system with multiple competing grading and reporting agencies, there is *less* danger of fraud or bribery because there would be considerable reward for one's agency's exposing the misdeeds of its competitors.

6. No environmental protection laws. We already have the necessary legal framework to prosecute cases of environmental damage. If you harm the environment, you're damaging property that someone owns. They can sue you for that damage and force you to make reparations. Under libertarian philosophy, one of government's few just functions is the protection of property.

I would define GroupThink as the acceptance of a widely held position or belief without independent, critical analysis of the merits of that belief. In my experience, Free Staters are extremely critical in their thinking, questioning everything. It just so happens that after their excruciating analysis, they find the principles of libertarianism to be internally consistent and morally acceptable. And sometimes they don't; I know people who have left the libertarian school of thought and become socialists. The point is that they think for themselves, and that, by definition, is the opposite of GroupThink.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the FSP as a colossal failure. They are getting pro-liberty ideas into the minds of the public, and they are getting elected to public office. This article fails to mention the other six FSP members who were elected to the NH state congress. They might not publicly advertise their affiliation with the FSP, but the pro-liberty, anti-coercion sentiment is there.

The "organizational principle" found within nature itself is difficult for libertarians to get around. Whether found in the organized structures of matter or the cooperative patterns observed in animal behavior it's there. Because of it, any large number of humans is compelled to organize which requires rules which inevitably lead to "government." The best that can be hoped for is the least oppressive or intrusive government possible. The mere hope that all will act in the interest of peace and tranquility can never produce the results required by a viable society.

"The "organizational principle" found within nature itself is difficult for libertarians to get around."
Bostonblakie, this is false. Libertarians recognize the existence of the naturally occuring Spontaneous Order as developed by Herbert Spencer. Also, libertarians are not opposed to voluntarily provided government functions--like the production of law, courts and security--libertarians are opposed to the monopoly and privilege that the State unjustly claims power of.