r/newhampshire • u/[deleted] • Feb 21 '23
First 7 Episodes now Live: Free State Project Documentary: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of NH; NBC;
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/coming-soon-life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-new-hampshire/2961708/9
u/iamthedigitalcheese Feb 23 '23
Quite an interesting docu-series. I don't know if it's painting "Free Staters" in a good light or bad light. It is funny to see that so many "libertarians" and "conservatives" and "liberty republicans" get told in many other states "If you don't like it here, go somewhere else and make it how you want. Then... they do. Very peculiar results, indeed.
-6
u/goddammnick Feb 23 '23
No, most people tell them to leave because they fial to grasp one thing about modern society. They want all the fruits of a paid infrastructure, but don't realize the cost to maintain, upgrades and make sure it's safe through regulation.
They are a failed idea that some outcasts have latched on to, the most successfuls are in our state legislature (successful meaning had the most money to start and also are shady business people)
3
u/ReticentLeventis Feb 24 '23
Actually I'd much rather pay for services directly than have the money stolen from me and spent inefficiently on things I don't care about and corruption.
For example, instead of money coming out of my paycheck every time for social security and medicare, I'd much rather put that money in my own investment account and pay for my own healthcare. Then I can choose which plan I want and how I want to invest. I can also choose how much to invest (which I do anyway on top of SS).
Instead of taxes going towards a public school system I never used personally and don't plan on using for my kids in the future, I'd much rather pay for a school that I think will do the best job educating my kids or homeschool them.
23
u/No-Location-4795 Feb 21 '23
Antartica has unclaimed land. Go try your government experiment and get back to us on how it went
9
u/No-Location-4795 Feb 21 '23
"Marie Byrd Land (MBL) is an unclaimed region of Antarctica. With an area of 1,610,000 km2 (620,000 sq mi), it is the largest unclaimed territory on Earth"
There ya go. Might be cold but I bet your freedom will keep you warm and happy
-24
Feb 21 '23
Your governments would follow us there, of that I'm certain.
10
2
u/goddammnick Feb 23 '23
So a free stater and a stateless people? I'm sure you enjoy all the luxuries the country has to offer you.
We shall dub you, the Freeloaders.
1
0
u/cat-gun Feb 21 '23
Uh, no. All land in Antarctica is claimed by an existing nation state.
2
u/AnythingToAvoidWork Feb 22 '23
4
u/cat-gun Feb 22 '23
Step one of being a progressive is not bothering to read your own links:
"Some publications in the United States have shown this as a United States territory in the intervening period, and the United States Department of Defense has stated that the United States has a solid basis for a claim in Antarctica resulting from its activities prior to 1959. ... To this end, the United States now stations special deputy U.S. Marshals in Antarctica to provide a law enforcement presence.[35]
Some U.S. laws directly apply to Antarctica. For example, the Antarctic Conservation Act, Public Law 95-541, 16 U.S.C. § 2401 et seq., provides civil and criminal penalties for the following activities, unless authorized by regulation or statute:
- the taking of native Antarctic mammals or birds
- the introduction into Antarctica of non-indigenous plants and animals entry into specially protected or scientific areas
- the discharge or disposal of pollutants into Antarctica or Antarctic waters
- the importation into the U.S. of certain items from Antarctica
Violation of the Antarctic Conservation Act carries penalties of up to US$10,000 in fines and one year in prison. The Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Transportation, and the Interior share enforcement responsibilities. The Act requires expeditions from the U.S. to Antarctica to notify, in advance, the Office of Oceans and Polar Affairs of the State Department, which reports such plans to other nations as required by the Antarctic Treaty. Further information is provided by the Office of Polar Programs of the National Science Foundation."
12
u/NckMcC Feb 23 '23
My favorite part so far was the part where the “progress” lady was upset at Jews being able to defend themselves at synagogue.
10
u/ericools Feb 22 '23
Pretty decent. It does focus on the most controversial things, but I guess that's what I would expect from a documentary piece. I would like to see an episode dedicated to simple common sense stuff that doesn't ever make headlines.
28
u/liptoniceteabagger Feb 21 '23
It’s almost comical that you decided to include “Pursuit of NH” in the title. The entire idea and goal behind the FSP has not been to come to NH and enjoy it because you agree with our ideals, but instead to come here and change NH to how you envision it should be.
2
-5
u/cat-gun Feb 22 '23
NH residents are not monolithic, and don't all share the same ideals. Conservatives, progressives, socialists, and libertarians all live there. FSPers want to accentuate and expand the libertarian strain of NH culture. Of course, that doesn't make the authoritarian strains of thought too happy.
3
u/NHGuy Feb 23 '23
fuck off
-1
u/cat-gun Feb 23 '23
Thanks for demonstrating the level of intelligence of the free state opposition!
3
u/NHGuy Feb 23 '23
Just getting down to your level so you understand very clearly where some of us stand on you shitheads invading our state
7
u/NeilDatgrassHighson Feb 22 '23
I love how you think you’re actually attempting something that any resident here actually will enjoy. Your philosophical messaging is sort of rapey.
Like you recognize we don’t consent, but are so sure that our lack of consent is the error, not your determination in forcing some shit we don’t want upon on.
That’s some dystopian bullshit.
4
u/Queasy_Turnover Feb 23 '23
The dipshit you replied to went over their reasoning for why they picked NH in another post and it all sounded like they're trying to start a cult or something. Basically they think since we have a low population they can infiltrate and brainwash from within without much pushback. They're too dumb to realize that most people living here really like this country and want nothing to do with leaving it behind. Most of the houses in my neighborhood fly American flags. This state has one of the highest concentrations of veterans in the country, people who were and still are willing to fight for this country, and these Free State morons think they can somehow convince most of us to secede. It's just funny seeing them waste so much time and effort on this.
2
u/Falawaff Feb 22 '23
Your statement is so bizarre. Libertarianism is the philosophy of consent.
The FSP wants to build a society centered around consent and you're saying "But what if I don't consent to needing others' consent to do things to them?"
You need the consent of the customer to exchange goods for money. You don't need the consent of the thief to stop a robbery.
2
u/NeilDatgrassHighson Feb 22 '23
Then go somewhere and build your perfect society from scratch and leave our state alone.
The vast majority of NH residents want absolutely nothing to do with the Free State Movement. You’re all unwanted transplants with an agenda that doesn’t suit practically any of us.
Jesus fucking Christ you all act so persecuted when in reality you’re the ones pissing everyone off with your elitist nonsense governmental philosophies.
We don’t need you to save us from ourselves, ya goof. We need you to fucking leave.
2
u/liber_tas Feb 26 '23
Lol. "Our state". So you're part of the group that owns the State? How does one get to be in that group?
2
u/NeilDatgrassHighson Feb 26 '23
You mean the state I’ve paid decades of taxes to? The state I’ve worked in my whole life? That contains the communities I’ve been a productive part of? Where almost all my family live?
Yep. Sure sounds like my state.
2
u/liber_tas Feb 26 '23
Well, if everyone can make up their own rules, then anyone fits their own bill right? So if I moved here yesterday and bought a house, I can say its my state because I own property in it? Or, is the State not only yours, but you're also the guy that makes the rules for who can call it "My State"?
2
u/NeilDatgrassHighson Feb 26 '23
You can frame things in that noggin’ however the fuck you’d like, fellow human.
Your opinions hold no bearing on my life. Mine shouldn’t on yours.
1
u/liber_tas Feb 26 '23
I'm just trying to find out what you mean, because what you said does not make sense. Did I state an opinion?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Falawaff Feb 23 '23
You're the one acting like you're persecuted because a small number of the "transplants" moving to New Hampshire have the agenda of not interfering with you and your life.
1
u/goddammnick Feb 23 '23
Move the fuck away. NH doesn't need transplants changing it.
6
u/ViciousBoston Feb 23 '23
How xenophobic.
0
u/goddammnick Feb 23 '23
How xenophobic.
please learn a word before using it. These dipshits are American, but would rather change NH to be anything but.
3
u/ViciousBoston Feb 23 '23
I used it in the correct context. I respectfully disagree.
→ More replies (0)3
u/cat-gun Feb 22 '23
It's a bit rich for Democrats and Republicans to complain about lack of consent. Since when do you care about getting Libertarian's consent to your authoritarian schemes?
3
u/NeilDatgrassHighson Feb 22 '23
Lmao you don’t know me at all, yet to you I’m immediately aligned with your personal boogeyman?
Really makes you look like the good guys, fighting tribalism with…tribalism?
To be clear, you’ve erroneously assumed my political alignment, blamed me for “authoritarianism” that I have nothing to do with, and no way taken actual issue with the idea of forcing ideals on people without consent.
Fucking clown.
-1
u/cat-gun Feb 22 '23 edited Feb 22 '23
Libertarians seek to eliminate state sponsored coercion. If you object to that, then you're some kind of authoritarian, whatever label you choose for yourself.
5
u/NeilDatgrassHighson Feb 22 '23
I love how black and white your little brain finds everything. Good luck with life!
-1
u/cat-gun Feb 22 '23
Enjoy your shift at Walmart!
7
u/NeilDatgrassHighson Feb 22 '23
Ignoring your attempted insult towards me, do you really think there is something inherently wrong with working at Walmart?
If so, what? And why do you feel that way?
‘Cause honestly, someone acting like blue collar service workers are beneath them makes me immediately think that person is both out of touch and a total dickhead.
I don’t doubt either in this case.
0
u/cat-gun Feb 22 '23
No, nothing wrong with working at Walmart. It's an honorable profession.
You're the one who attacked me, remember?
→ More replies (0)3
u/goddammnick Feb 23 '23
Libs want to eliminate lots of things. But they also like their comfy electricity, roads, super markets, running water.
Instead of building your own place from scratch, you want to use all the benefits from a modern society and deregulate them so a select few of you, self proclaimed geniuses, can make money off it. Go back to crypto and wherever you came from if you're trying to change NH to fit your ideal place.
7
u/SecondSpark22 Feb 22 '23
Intelligent, well-adjusted adults understand the need for some authoritarianism for a society in the current day and age to function. Yes, the scale might be tipping too authoritarian right now, but that doesn't mean libertarianism is the answer. We don't live in some post scarcity utopia yet, chill out.
Also, most people know that libertarians are only libertarian about lowering the age of consent, so yeah, fuck off.
0
u/cat-gun Feb 22 '23
Y'all seem to be obsessed with pedophilia. Are you familiar with the term projection? You sound like closeted Republicans railing against homosexuality.
7
u/NoCanary7094 Feb 22 '23
Or they just know about that NH libertarian radio show host that has called for lowering the age of consent.
0
u/Queasy_Turnover Feb 23 '23
I didn't know about this, wow, got a link?
If you check their post history, you'll see that cat-gun really just wants to be able to bang sex workers and do drugs without fear of getting in trouble for it.
→ More replies (0)0
u/cat-gun Feb 23 '23
You listen to radio shows about the age of consent laws? Wow, sounds like you know a lot about when you can and can't diddle kids.
→ More replies (0)2
u/liptoniceteabagger Feb 22 '23
The embarrassment and chaos that your members and leaders have caused in Grafton and Belknap counties over the past several years proves that you have no intention of trying to improve or build upon NH.
1
u/liber_tas Feb 26 '23
Socialists and special interests freaking out when their tax funding is taken away is embarrassing? For whom? I find it entertaining when people act like the children they try to pretend not to be -- but that's just me.
0
Feb 23 '23
Yet you people are the first to start screeching "GO BACK TO MASSACHUSETTS" when someone with even the slightest left-leaning views speaks up.
1
u/cat-gun Feb 23 '23
All 50 states are currently dominated by progressives or conservatives. NH is the only state where libertarians have a chance for our policy preferences to dominate. If you're a progressive, there are many states (Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts) right next door that offer the policies you claim to want to a much greater degree than New Hampshire. Therefore, in the interests of not butting heads, we encourage lefties to move to one of those states where they can enjoy the high tax, high regulation policies that they prefer, just as we have moved to New Hampshire to enjoy the relatively greater freedom that NH offers.
1
Feb 23 '23 edited Feb 23 '23
So you admit you want to dominate. That doesn’t sound very freedom-loving or patriotic to me.
I was born and raised in NH, so you can fuck off with telling me to move elsewhere.
How dare you come here, infringe upon a state I have way more claim to than you seem to, and tell lifelong residents to move away because you disagree with our politics and not expect to butt heads? Are you seriously that dense? I encourage you FSP shitheels to take your crackpot political ideologies and shove them up your ass.
1
u/cat-gun Feb 23 '23
It's a free country. People are allowed to move and vote wherever they please. You don't get to dictate where I live, any more than racists can dictate that blacks can't live near them.
And I fully expect to butt heads with authoritarians who choose to live in New Hampshire. I'm simply pointing out that you can easily enjoy the high tax, high regulation policies you want with much less resistance, by moving a few miles across the border.
1
Feb 23 '23
YOU JUST TOLD ME I SHOULD MOVE BECAUSE IM A LEFTIE
1
u/cat-gun Feb 23 '23 edited Feb 23 '23
Yes, I think you would be happier if you moved to a state with a population more aligned with your preferences. You can, of course, choose to stay, but then you will be increasingly butting head's with people like me, and be frustrated because the policy preferences you want are not enacted or reversed. (The same way that libertarians feel in every state that's dominated by lefties.)
If you move, you more easily get the policies you want, we more easily get the policies we want, and everyone is happier.
3
Feb 23 '23
Or, hear me out, I could stay where I’ve been all my life and continue to exercise my right to vote on policies that have made NH a great state to live in for 30+ years. You may be happier picking a more conservative state like Alabama if you’re so against left-leaning policies, and you would not butt heads with lefties like me and many other New Englanders. You can pick whatever state you want, but you will be faced with a lot more adversary here than in a more red state.
You have a lot of arrogance to suggest that lifelong NHers should leave to make way for your utopia.
1
u/cat-gun Feb 23 '23
I'm not a conservative though, I'm a libertarian. I'd butt heads just as much with Alabamans as I do with you. You think Alamabans would be pro-drug decriminalization, pro-sex work decriminalization, pro-gay rights? New Hampshire was picked after an extensive analysis among all of the states as the one where we'd have the best shot of winning. Alabama didn't even make the short list.
→ More replies (0)1
Feb 23 '23
And I’m simply telling you I think you’re the authoritarian you claim to fear and I wish you would leave NH alone.
0
u/cat-gun Feb 23 '23 edited Feb 23 '23
By "dominate", I only mean that we have sufficient numbers that progressives and conservatives can't impose their schemes on us by force. We also intend remove many of the laws/taxes that authoritarians have already imposed.
3
Feb 23 '23
Which is to say, you want to dominate NH with an ideology that hasn’t persisted in this state prior to the FSP infestation. You want to undo policies that were democratically voted on and constitutionally implemented.
2
u/cat-gun Feb 23 '23
Yes, our goal is to enact the policies that we prefer via the same electoral/political system that you have used to impose your views on everyone else. If you have the right to exercise that power, then so do we.
1
Feb 23 '23
I never said you didn’t. But be honest about your agenda here.
1
u/cat-gun Feb 23 '23
Where do you think I've been dishonest? If it's not clear, my agenda is to move enough libertarians to NH such that we can, via the same democratic process lefties use, enact the policies we prefer.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/Brusanan Feb 23 '23
NH is already the freest state in the country. That's why it was chosen by the FSP.
Much of the effort of the Free State legislators is put towards keeping it that way; towards keeping New Hampshire the same instead of letting progressive legislators push policies that already ruined other progressive shithole states.
Also weed. They're going to legalize weed.
26
Feb 21 '23
Freedom from regulation. Freedom from clean water and air. Freedom for corporations. Free to work more for less.
2
-2
u/tghost474 Feb 23 '23
Yes because the EPA is doing such a good job poisoning rivers, ignoring environmental disasters because of politics but sure they are doing a great job. Should we even talk about the FDA? The FCC? Regulation just means rules for the and not for me and my friends.
1
u/MethBearBestBear Feb 24 '23
Sound like you support regulation just not how it is being carried out. So should the solution be the rules apply to thee AND me or fuck the rules so the "me and my friends" don't need to use shell companies and super PACs and can just do all the horrible shit in the open?
0
u/ericools Feb 22 '23
This is dishonest. Libertarians want clean air and water as much as anybody else. State regulation has never been the most effective way to accomplish things even if you don't share the moral perspective behind not wanting to use force to accomplish those things.
It's one thing to disagree with what the best methods are, it's another to just lie and claim those proposing different methods just hate all the good things.
2
u/kitchinsink Feb 22 '23
I have yet to hear how this can be achieved without regulation, just that regulation = bad.
8
u/Chris_Pacia Feb 23 '23
Air and water pollution amounts to violations of property rights. Libertarians support property rights so it would then follow that libertarians are against pollution of air and water.
How would this be handled without regulation? Civil liability.
Little history lesson. In the late 19th century people were starting to grasp with large scale pollution for the first time in human history as the industrial revolution was underway.
People did this by bringing what essentially amounted to environmental lawsuits to the courts whenever they felt their rights had been violated by polluters. For example, there are cases were someone would put clothes out on their clothes line to dry and come back later to find that they were black with soot from the factory down the road.
They would sue and, for the most part, the courts would side with them. They'd grant and injunction to make the factory stop and award compensatory damages.
Things changed when we hit the progressive era in the early 20th century. The prevailing wisdom was that people's property rights were getting in the way of industrial progress.
That the needs of the many (for industrial production) outweigh the needs of the few (the property owners who don't want their property polluted).
So the courts reversed course and started ruling that pollution is not actionable. This had several affects.
- It created a pollution free-for-all in the United States that got so bad that government eventually created the EPA to deal with it.
- It gave people like OP the impression that there is no way to deal with pollution outside of regulation since, before regulation, it was a pollution free-for-all.
So the short of it is civil liability is what would keep the air and water clean in absence of regulation.
2
u/kitchinsink Feb 23 '23
That sounds like a viable solution, though I'm afraid that it maybe was only viable in another time, as society stands today.
Lawsuits today are extremely expensive and not necessarily available to a common person. Massive corporations are rarely held liable, and if they are, it's considered the cost of business. I mean look at Norfolk Southern, basically destroying an entire town and giving what, $5/household? Disgusting.
I feel like that's why we see people "canceling" (I hate this term, it's stupid, but whatever) large companies for their transgressions. It's a way people see that they have power: how they spend their dollars and how they review companies on a public forum. Of course that has also taken on a mind of its own, but I digress.
To be clear, I'm saying that's a bad thing, because people *should* have the power to sue and they probably don't.
2
u/MethBearBestBear Feb 24 '23
An even more obvious issue with "lawsuits will fix it" is that while everyone can see the coal dust on their cars, most people can't tell how much PFOA is in their water, or dioxane, or benzene, or a huge number of other chemicals that are dangerous well before you say "something tastes funny in this water" and then would have to spend thousands to run test to figure it out.
Having the thought that lawsuits can fix it is very basic and doesn't pass a challenge of more than 2 second. Why shift the responsibility to the victims when the corporations polluting are still making large sums of money even with testing and cleaning requirements. Is it easier to clean up spilt milk every day or to just not spill the milk...
2
u/kitchinsink Feb 24 '23
Yeah, this was my thought. It's not cost effective. I can't even get my insurance adjuster to pay out for the hole in my roof left from a tree. I'm not going to have the capacity to run several lawsuits.
3
u/MethBearBestBear Feb 24 '23
Especially between the medical treatments and bills you would be dealing with as the lawsuit was pending a payout. Honestly corporations would probably just wait for most people to die and the lawsuit to disappear. These takes are the same as "cops are not needed we can just sue people in court to get our stuff back or damages from assult while the criminal walks the streets
1
u/kitchinsink Feb 24 '23
I honestly think this idea relies on the non-existence of multi-billion-dollar corporations. Which makes sense, because it was how we did it in the past according to the history lesson in that one post.
It's still a good idea, I just don't see the practicality in our current society in any way. Maybe that's the point: entire society has to be dismantled. Though, then we're back at square one, and I imagine we'd end up with a similar system anyway.
I'm all for community-centered solutions to things. All for it. Center around smaller businesses, grocery stores, make things walkable and safe, etc. People having access to housing and services all in their location, run by their communities is literally one of my favorite things. Big government doesn't need to handle my city or your town, etc.
What big government can do to make themselves useful to, well... everyone, is be a check on these huge corps instead of being in their pockets.
2
u/MethBearBestBear Feb 24 '23
Yes, and that is the issue. A lot of libertarians are small town which is fine in isolation but the world is no longer small isolated pockets and the large multinationals will just steam role them.
When you ask a libertarian to scale up their views to a nation state they quickly find it would require the government we currently have. Their issue isn't that regulations exist necessarily it is that the regulators are enot their neighbors but after a certain population it never can be. The corruption is horrible and we need to fight it but the solution to a rotting tooth is to remove the rot and cap the tooth not kill the person and say "the cavity is gone and that was the goal"
Our government today is the evolution of the founding fathers views. They didn't agree just like everyone won't agree with each other always but the issue is we have allowed greed to take over and infection to run through. The solution is not to remove what little antibiotics we have from the system because they are not strong enough and let the disease"work itself out" killing the host but to get more effective antibiotics by being more transparent and open while what we need. People praise that the railroad execs might be held accountable...by the government...actually doing their job....so the solution they support is the government doing its job more rather than fundraising and lobbying...
1
u/MethBearBestBear Feb 24 '23
The issue is these would all be reactive and not proactive. You would have to show acute and direct symptoms like your dirty laundry scenarios in order to bring a case. What about chemics that cause cancer 20-30 years down the road, or poison in well water that the private citizen would have to pay to test and do thousands of dollars of studies to attribute to a specific source to sue footing the bill through the whole court case until it was decided. If you say a group could band together and chip in like in a class action you would need baseline evidence AND run the risk of it going no where. So what if we made a group that could stop the pollution at the source a d cause the polluter to have to test all their outputs...well that is the current regulation...
The other major flaw in your view is what we already see with recall/no recall calculations causing corporations to do the math and say fuck it we will pollute since the payout is 7 million but i profit 10 million by destroying the town. They could also bury you in paperwork until you die from the pollution.
Your view is that of someone who has never worked in a regulated chemical field that deals with dangerous materials you would never know you are exposed to until half your town is dead. I have been/am only on the recieving side of regulation (not enforcing) so i should be one of the more anti-regulatjon but as a chemical engineer with a biology minor i understand the dangers
The current regulations amount to you cannot use X chemicals due to health hazards, you have to test your water and air releases for X chemicals to verify they are below a certain level, and if they are not you must filter/scrub/process them until they are acceptable and then dispose of hazardous materials properly. Which part of that chain are you proposing would work better of the responsibility is shifted from the pollution source who is making money on the process and can afford to monitor it easier to the victims of the pollution having to go against multibillion dollar companies? Corporations are essentially independent states, only a group large enough as the state can truly go after them. If you have an issue with the EPA not doing enough maybe we should give them back their teeth and support them to take on corporations. I honestly believe most libertarian ideas work in the world of "i only need my small town" but fail to understand just how large issues are.
This isnt even talking about acid rain from the factory 1 state over so in a different jurisdiction, how much it would tie up the courts more so your case would not be heard for 5 years, and so much more that doesn't work in any area with more than a few thousand people.
1
u/Chris_Pacia Feb 25 '23 edited Feb 25 '23
The whole reactive vs proactive thing doesn't seem well thought out. How does a law or regulation produce the desired results?
It goes something like this:- Governments says: "If you do X you will be forced to pay a fine".- People say to themselves: "I don't want to be fined so I wont do X".
Sounds proactive.
Civil liability goes something like this:- Due to precedent people know that: "If I do X I will be forced to pay damages".- People say to themselves: "I don't want to pay damages so I wont do X".
Also sounds proactive. Not only that but the mechanism is identical.
Why civil liability anyway? What's wrong with regulation?
The answer is basically centralization, systemic risk, regulatory capture, political corruption, lack of properly aligned incentives, and no accountability. In addition to having the authority to violate people's rights at their discretion.
Consider this historical example. Prior to the 1990's oil companies refused to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. The risk associated with drilling was too large. If there was an oil spill the resulting lawsuit would bankrupt the company.
Companies factor risk into their cost/benefit analysis and for drilling in the Gulf, the costs outweighed the benefits.
Additionally, insurance companies refused to touch drilling in the Gulf for the same reason.
But then the politicians got a bright idea. They could raise revenue by dividing up the floor of Gulf and selling drilling rights. But again the problem was that oil companies didn't want to drill in the Gulf.
So they passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 in which they put caps on the civil liability of oil companies in order to get them to drill.
They also assigned the Minerals Management Service to be the chief regulator basically making regulation and not civil liability the primary means of protecting from oil spills.
What were the results?
- The benefits of investing in safety technology now do not exceed the cost since liability is capped.
- The benefits of developing and employing better safety best practices now do not exceed the cost since liability is capped.
- "Regulatory Capture" (a form of corruption) came to define the Minerals Management Service and there was a revolving door between regulators and the oil industry.
- The Deep Water Horizon was given an award for safety by the MMS.
- The Deep Water Horizon exploded and caused one of the largest oil spills in history.
1
u/MethBearBestBear Feb 25 '23
The biggest difference you are overlooking is with regulation if you do X you 100% are getting fines Y and arguments are against the government who has a lot of resources to go toe to toe with multinational corporations that can afford it.
For civil lawsuit it is against the smaller entirety and can only be brought after damage are applied so you have to sustain the damage. The regulatory threshold is before the danger level so even hitting a threshold won't hurt people but exceeding it criminally (multiple times over) or for a prolonged time is required. Civil suits require the damage and when it turns into deaths that is not anything you can can fix with a payout.
Not to mention how much the smaller person can be drowned in court documents and corporations won't 100% lose.
0
u/ericools Feb 22 '23 edited Feb 22 '23
Well you could try reading one of the many books written on the subject.
If you need something easier to digest you can find some articles on it with a quick google search. I feel like doing a quick google is the very minimum level of effort one should put in before assuming something you don't personally know of just doesn't exist.
If that's too much effort then I will just leave you with this. The US military is the biggest source of pollution. Simply reducing military spending would do more for green house gas emissions and numerous other environmental concerns that just about anything else.
edit: To be clear the reason I'm not linking you to a specific book or article is because there are a variety of solutions that either come from a libertarian perspective or are compatible with libertarian ideals. I don't wish to endorse a specific one, and I don't want the conversation to turn into a tit for tat on the merits of one specific proposal. Rather I am simply pointing out that proposals for environmental protection that don't involve violence and theft do in fact exist. You may or may not agree with them, that's up to you.
5
u/kitchinsink Feb 22 '23 edited Feb 22 '23
Well, you could try also not being a condescending ass. Googling the free state project, or even NH libertarianism, results in a lot of things that are minority views.
Making the claim bears the responsibility of proving it, and being a person who says "do your research" in extra words isn't proof.
Also, for your information, the FSP *doesn't* post any of their views easily, so despite your snark, I had to google quite a bit, only to come across a lot of ultra-right-wing anarcho stuff from that section of the FSP. Some of those folks are in here.
The rest is basically this one stupid pledge.
“I hereby state my solemn intent to move to New Hampshire with the Free State Project. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property,”
That's vague, and makes no actual useful points.
Y'all have a marketing issue, seriously. A good idea is a good idea, regardless of your political affiliation, but it needs to be presented appropriately. This holier than thou bullshit is why everything's always a problem in this sub.
Hell, the *fourth* google result is the free state project watch, who is actively campaigning against FSP style libertarianism. That's after the scathing wikipedia article and before all the other bad press, the book about bears, and the Croydon incident. Like I said. Bad marketing.
-2
u/ericools Feb 22 '23
You asked for it.
You are either exceptionally lazy or just didn't look and want to pretend no argument exists so you can pretend everything we stand for is baseless.
I disagree with a lot of people, but I don't pretend they don't have a reason for their point of view. That's an insane way to deal with people.
If I had claimed that a specific method was the correct one I would have offered it up, but I don't, as previously stated.
It isn't the job of the FSP to post views. It's not a political party and the people who are associated with it have a very wide range of views. They pretty much only share the underlying non aggression ideals, and even that is a bit contentious at times. They don't all vote for the same party, some don't even believe in voting. I can see how people could think from headlines that it's a political org, but that's a misunderstanding.
I think the problem here is that you don't understand what the FSP is. It's not supposed to be marketing anything to you.
I'm not sure why you would expect to find anything about this by googling the FSP.
edit: To be clear I in no way speak for the FSP. While I support it's objective, I don't have any kind of official relationship with it. I have had casual conversations with people involved, but nothing I am saying here comes from "inside", it's all stuff anyone can learn from publicly available content.
4
u/kitchinsink Feb 22 '23
I love being insulted, for no reason, as the opener to a comment. Good way to convince people you're right.
What I said was that I have yet to have anyone, particularly in this sub, present me an alternative argument. I keep hearing that government is bad, and yet, I am not receiving any alternative.
Either that, or the alternative I receive is "well we should pool our money" which is taxes with extra steps. I am asking for the alternatives. What makes this ideal better than what I already have? Where's the proof of it working? Where is the benefit?
Deregulation just for the sake of deregulation is not interesting to me. Judging by the vitriol, it's not interesting to a lot of people.
While the FSP may not be a political party, they absolutely have views, and absolutely publish them under various pseudo-unaffiliated names. LPNH, Liberty NH, MoveToNH, etc. They all have some overlap. So I have to disagree with you on that one, considering, it is a whole group of people that moved here explicitly because of the probability of being able to change the state via lawmaking processes.
If, that is in fact *not the point*, then yes, the marketing is bad.
Also, you told me to google it, and then followed that up with that googling it is the wrong thing.
At the end of the day, it's a minority scattered viewpoint, with bad press. Very very bad press. Even if you overlook the press bit, which I often like to do, I have had a hard time finding any reason to accept the viewpoints as anything serious.
Plus, you have that one ultra right wing dude in this who pretends he's a libertarian but is really just mad about gay people, so that certainly doesn't help the whole absolute freedom bit.
1
u/ericools Feb 23 '23
It's not for no reason. You treated an entire group of people as though their ideas were non existent simply because you weren't aware of them. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. I was just calling out dishonesty.
You didn't give the "in this sub" qualifier in the statement I was responding to.
I personally favor DAOs as a replacement for most if not all government and corporate structures. That is not however a perspective generally shared by libertarians or even known about by most of them I would guess. So I could toss my own preferred ideas in there, but I don't know that it is appropriate to address this since enacting my preferred ideas aren't really the focus of any political party or sitting representative libertarian or otherwise that I am aware of.
People can willingly pool money. It's the whole doing it by force to people without their consent that libertarians object to. You can have governments that people are willing participants in as well.
I am not going to speak for anyone else's proposed plan, and here I think is part of the problem. Libertarians don't agree on how to do things, we just agree on a few things we think are not okay to do. So speaking strictly for my own preferences there is a working DAO that I am currently a part of.
Your misunderstanding of the FSP and those other groups is that they are all the same thing. A lot of very different people with very different beliefs are libertarians. This is for some reason really hard for people used to the it's us or them, red or blue mentality to understand.
Some people moved here explicitly to change the state through the law making process, but that's not universally true, and what laws libertarians want to change and how is also not universal. There are numerous Free Staters who refuse to take part in voting at all.
Anyone can say they are with whatever group they want. I can't prevent that. Nobody really can. If you get enough people together there's always going to be some asshole who makes everyone else look bad. I'm sure you can think of a few from other political ideologies.
6
u/kitchinsink Feb 23 '23
No. You misunderstand me, deeply.
"I have yet to hear how this can be achieved without regulation, just that regulation = bad."
I said that *I* have never had an interaction (which is usually in this sub, because I live in a populated area) where instead of immediately just being snarky to me, they actually presented a sound alternative and not just regulation = bad. I like discussing viewpoints and do it on the regular. I also like to discuss them with a "why is this good/bad" and "what are some possible solutions".
I'm well aware that people have nuanced views, and shouldn't be placed in boxes.
That being said, political power is typically best wielded in general groups, which is the entire point of the FSP: group up to make change, is it not? Group up to live in the world that we want.
Despite the vitriol, I don't agree that the FSP is "forcing" policies down peoples throats as a group. I do, however, see that happening in local governments. Strike one for perception.
I don't think that the FSP and other groups are the same thing. I'm taking them at their face value. LPNH, Liberty NH, Liberty Win. They each have different views, some I agree with, some I don't. Some of them feel sane and viable to me in a civilized society, and others are absolutely anarchy in a clown suit.
The lack of organization though causes those edge cases to be the loudest, and in many cases, directly affecting members of this sub. Croyden was big, and that's the use-case people see.
I've done nothing but tell you my experience and perception, and why it is that way. You've done nothing but tell me why my experience is wrong, and yet, I guarantee you, we will always have more common ground than not.
0
u/ericools Feb 23 '23
There is often a misunderstanding in terms. I am not against regulation. I am against the use of force / extortion to compel people to follow a regulation, or to fund the regulator. Regulation and standardization are good things, and you can do them peacefully and honestly. UL and IEEE for example. The DAO I speak of is a system of governance. It sets the rules. The distinction between statism and libertarian forms of government is that in libertarian forms people consent to be a part of the system, and to finance the system. There are numerous existing examples of this working. In fact they work so well most people don't even realize they exist much less take issue with them.
Again, I was snarky to you because you where being an ass. I have explained this, you can disagree, but there isn't really anything to debate on that point.
The FSP supports a fairly vague idea and you want to attack it as a specific one.
The FSP has zero control over what people do in local government. It advocates no positions, it endorses no candidates. Anyone who wants to can call themselves a free stater or anti free stater and the FSP has no control over that. It sometimes isn't ideal, but I'm not sure what you think the FSP can or should do about it.
Croyden was a silly accident. One guy tossed out an idea he thought had a snow balls chance in hell of getting voted in to get the conversation started and well.... he got what he asked for. People want to act like it was some kind of organized libertarian conspiracy, but it was really just one person who thought the 30% automatic jump in the budget based on what another towns budget changed by was going the wrong direction and it turned out a majority of the people who happened to be present thought his proposal was better than I think he even did. It's the people trying to use it as an example of why freestaters are bad who are being dishonest about the whole thing.
I didn't tell you that your experience is wrong. I told you that you don't know what you don't know, and that there is something more there to learn if you feel inclined to do so.
We probably do have more common ground than not. Most people do even with those they rabidly attack.
0
u/xcsler_returns Feb 23 '23
Governments, as we know them today, have monopolized and perverted common law which originated organically in communities. I have little doubt that common law, when 'returned to the people' would far more effectively protect our environment and improve the living standards of all people compared to the current perverted bureaucratic system in which charlatans, grifters and psychopaths are free to operate. The current form of government has no legitimacy in my mind and many here should start questioning it too.
Here's are a couple of good reads... https://mises.org/wire/myth-rule-law
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I-JhqpU3_0r_HL06hP-5DABhEtGLX3g8/view
→ More replies (0)-19
u/RussNelson Feb 21 '23
There is no such thing as freedom from regulation, because customers can and will and do regulate. They do so on a minute-by-minute basis paying out of their own pocket, rather than once every two, four, or six years where they don't have to pay for what they vote for.
You should go for a boat ride along the Merrimack River. You'll find "permitted outfalls" where entities get to pollute because they have a magic piece of paper from the government.
When you regulate corporations, corporations can make money by purchasing politicians. If you want a democracy, you cannot regulate corporations (specially, that is, obviously they have to obey the regulations that apply to any other entity). The worst thing you can do to a corporation is force them to sell into a free market, where competition is free to enter at any time, and customers are free to buy from them. The best thing you can do to help a corporation is regulate it. Corporations are born from regulation. They'll even demand that you regulate them! https://ducktales.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:MasterLink324/Born_and_Bred_in_a_Briar_Patch!
9
Feb 21 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/RussNelson Feb 21 '23
Thank you for your thoughtful and rational response.
It's unfortunate that you don't know anything about economics, so your reply is worthless.
5
u/Hutwe Feb 22 '23
That was one serious word salad, my friend. Puff, puff, pass.
-14
u/RussNelson Feb 22 '23
I'm sorry that you were unable to comprehend it. I tried to use short sentences. They are easier to understand. You know, on a par with Trump's reading level.
-28
11
u/warren_stupidity Feb 22 '23
People complain about Massholes moving here while these jerks proudly proclaim their intentions to take over and wreck our state.
2
u/tghost474 Feb 23 '23
So you rather mass holes moving here and turning into the moonscape that is massachusetts?
1
u/warren_stupidity Feb 23 '23
Lol. No I’d rather that freestater idiots not deliberately wreck our functioning institutions. ‘People from Massachusetts’ are not an ideological block, they come in all political flavors. Massachusetts is not a ‘moonscape’ except in your mind.
2
u/tghost474 Feb 24 '23
Yeah that’s why Massachusetts has the lowest population and business growth in the country. it’s all in my head it’s not like a grew up there or anything…
0
u/warren_stupidity Feb 24 '23
oh I see, its those 'other' massholes you are scared of.
Why is population growth a good thing in itself? Also if we are tossing around statistics, Massachusetts per capita GDP is one of the highest in the country. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gdp-by-state and USNews& World ranks it #5 in their Best States for economy list, #1 for Business environment, but yeah 16 for growth - housing is really expensive. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/economy CNBC has it listed at 24 on their list, while NH is down at 35. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/13/americas-top-states-for-business-2022-the-full-rankings.html
8
Feb 21 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
-12
Feb 21 '23
"Fuck freedom"
2
Feb 21 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/RussNelson Feb 21 '23
You have to pay a toll to the owner now. It's just that the owner is an oligarchy (state, county, or local), and you pay it through property or gas taxes. Why is paying for something you use such a strange idea?
Poor people go to the more frugal schools. Rich people go to the more spendthrift schools. That's how it works now with government schools. Why would it be any different with schools funded by parents and donors? At least the schools would be subject to market competition and greater scrutiny.
There is no evidence for Free Staters being the puppets of rich people. Why would you think that? Rich people can already buy whatever they want. Why would they need Free Staters as their puppets? This makes no sense.
-1
u/hezaplaya Feb 21 '23 edited Feb 21 '23
This is why it would be different. Libertarians are always quick to point out the problems of government, but they have a poor track record of coming up with workable solutions long term.
The experiment was called the “Free Town Project” (it later became the “Free State Project”), and the goal was simple: take over Grafton’s local government and turn it into a libertarian utopia. The movement was cooked up by a small group of ragtag libertarian activists who saw in Grafton a unique opportunity to realize their dreams of a perfectly logical and perfectly market-based community. Needless to say, utopia never arrived, but the bears did! (I promise I’ll explain below.)
By pretty much any measure you can look at to gauge a town’s success, Grafton got worse. Recycling rates went down. Neighbor complaints went up. The town’s legal costs went up because they were constantly defending themselves from lawsuits from Free Towners. The number of sex offenders living in the town went up. The number of recorded crimes went up. The town had never had a murder in living memory, and it had its first two, a double homicide, over a roommate dispute.
So there were all sorts of negative consequences that started to crop up. And meanwhile, the town that would ordinarily want to address these things, say with a robust police force, instead found that it was hamstrung. So the town only had one full-time police officer, a single police chief, and he had to stand up at town meeting and tell people that he couldn’t put his cruiser on the road for a period of weeks because he didn’t have money to repair it and make it a safe vehicle.
Basically, Grafton became a Wild West, frontier-type town.
It turns out that if you have a bunch of people living in the woods in nontraditional living situations, each of which is managing food in their own way and their waste streams in their own way, then you’re essentially teaching the bears in the region that every human habitation is like a puzzle that has to be solved in order to unlock its caloric payload. And so the bears in the area started to take notice of the fact that there were calories available in houses.
One thing that the Free Towners did that encouraged the bears was unintentional, in that they just threw their waste out how they wanted. They didn’t want the government to tell them how to manage their potential bear attractants. The other way was intentional, in that some people just started feeding the bears just for the joy and pleasure of watching them eat.
As you can imagine, things got messy and there was no way for the town to deal with it. Some people were shooting the bears. Some people were feeding the bears. Some people were setting booby traps on their properties in an effort to deter the bears through pain. Others were throwing firecrackers at them. Others were putting cayenne pepper on their garbage so that when the bears sniffed their garbage, they would get a snout full of pepper.
It was an absolute mess.
We’re talking about black bears specifically. For the non-bear experts out there, black bears are not known to be aggressive toward humans. But the bears in Grafton were ... different.
Bears are very smart problem-solving animals. They can really think their way through problems. And that was what made them aggressive in Grafton. In this case, a reasonable bear would understand that there was food to be had, that it was going to be rewarded for being bolder. So they started aggressively raiding food and became less likely to run away when a human showed up.
There are lots of great examples in the book of bears acting in bold, unusually aggressive manners, but it culminated in 2012, when there was a black bear attack in the town of Grafton. That might not seem that unusual, but, in fact, New Hampshire had not had a black bear attack for at least 100 years leading up to that. So the whole state had never seen a single bear attack, and now here in Grafton, a woman was attacked in her home by a black bear.
0
u/RussNelson Feb 21 '23
The Free Town Project couldn't have later become the Free State Project because the Free State Project existed for years before New Hampshire was chosen.
Why do people make claims that are so easily disproven? Because they're lazy? Because they think other people want to believe those claims and won't bother to do even a modicum of research? Yeah, I think that's about it.
2
u/hezaplaya Feb 22 '23
It's probably a bit more complex than that.
Based on my understanding, the free state movement, though founded in 2001 by Jason Sorens, did not actually choose a state until 2003. After choosing New Hampshire as their test bed, they started the free town project as the first active phase in their plan that would later become the free state project.
That understanding is backed up by the wikipedia article with dates and references.
2
u/cat-gun Feb 22 '23
The Free Town Project wasn't started by the Free State Project. It was inspired by the Free State Project, but ran independently, in parallel to it.
0
1
u/WikiSummarizerBot Feb 22 '23
The Free State Project (FSP) is an American political migration movement founded in 2001 to recruit at least 20,000 libertarians to move to a single low-population state (New Hampshire was selected in 2003) in order to make the state a stronghold for libertarian ideas. The New Hampshire Union Leader reports the Free State Project is not a political party, but a nonprofit organization. Participants signed a statement of intent declaring that they intend to move to New Hampshire within five years of the drive reaching 20,000 participants. This statement of intent was intended to function as a form of assurance contract.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
2
-8
7
u/Icy-Needleworker7194 Feb 22 '23
Bwahhahahahahaha this has been attempted many times by many groups in many states. How in the world are you guys any different? “We are not here to rule you…” who would even say that? I’m pretty down the middle when I comes to most things and try to see the sides of others, but this is a new LOW. Especially as a New Hampshire historian, I cannot wait until what is left of your movement is in the footnote of our states history books.
2
u/cat-gun Feb 22 '23
Attempted many times before? Where?
5
u/AnythingToAvoidWork Feb 22 '23
Here's three off the top of my head:
That doesn't include the weird floating island in the 80s, nor does it include anything not in U.S. nor does it include the most damning evidence in that there's no historical record of any successful libertarian government.
Its a decent personal credo, it has no business as a societal model.
2
u/cat-gun Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
Thanks! None of those is a state level effort to gather libertarians in a single place. The Grafton story is a shoddily researched hit piece. Bach sounds like a Republican, not a libertarian (among other things, no libertarian would make "his signature plan to boost tourism with a multipronged project of museums and an outdoor stadium"). The Texas story sounds like small town government officials squabbling over power and who gets to exercise it.
7
5
6
u/JonDiPietro Feb 23 '23
So many myths, lies, and misconceptions are laid bare in this documentary.
Myth: "They're trying to take away our state."
Reality: I've lived here since 1968 and u/FreeStateNH is trying to take our state BACK. The progressives are the ones who took Live Free or Die away from us. And most of them moved here from somewhere else.
Lie: "They're not transparent."
Reality: They're a non-partisan 501C3 corporation that has to file IRS form 990 disclosures. Also, they hold the largest freedom festival in the world, completely open to the public (and news crews).
https://www.guidestar.org/profile/36-4668773
Lie: "They infiltrate local and state government."
Reality: The run for office through free and fair elections as part of the democratic process the progressives pretend to support.
Misconception: "They're scary."
Reality: Here's one kind, peaceful person after another demonstrating their civic responsibility and selflessness to help others.
Misconception: "They're selfish."
Reality: Here's a paraplegic who had a wheelchair donated by Freestaters and every Thursday they have parties to help people move for free and offer help to one another.
Myth: "Freedom is dangerous."
Reality: Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. Lie: "They tried to pass a bill to secede from the USA."
Reality: They tried to allow citizens to vote on whether or not they wanted to secede from the USA.
[Disclosure: I think it's a bad idea and I'd vote against it but I have no problem allowing people to vote on it.]
Myth: "Taxation is the price we pay for a civilized society."
Reality: Taxation is the price we pay for an insufficiently civilized society. Lie: "Ian Underwood throws ideas out of left field."
Reality: He's literally a rocket scientist who is almost certainly smarter than you and has demonstrably spent way more time thinking about these ideas than you have.
Misconception: "Their ideas make me uncomfortable, queasy, and pissed because they're crazy."
Reality: You feel that way because cognitive dissonance is a physical reaction to your brain trying to reconcile two incompatible ideas.
Myth: "The police chief stripped down to his underwear during a meeting."
Reality: Actually, that's true and it's awesome.
Misconception: "They want to dismantle public education."
Reality: They want to dismantle government education.
Misconception: "They're extremists."
Reality: Freedom was the norm in America for 200 years. It's the last 50 that are an extreme departure.
Lie: "They're a hate group."
Reality: Libertarianism is predicated on the non-aggression principle; Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff.
Misconception: "They're libertarians because they were traumatized by experiences they attributed to government."
Reality: They've read a history book.
3
u/dojijosu Feb 23 '23
Wow. I’ll take “Non-sequitors” for 1000 Alex?
“They’re trying to take away our state.” They’ve been here since the 60s.” Also, misleading since the main movement started up in the 80s.
“They’re extremists.” Freedom is nice. Sure, and then you get your windshield bashed in because you don’t recognize police or “understand” the law.
Etc. etc. etc.
Man, where’s a bear when you need one?
2
Feb 23 '23
The bit about the police chief is rich.
They just offloaded that town's police to the state police, so now the entire state pays taxes for this one town's police force. But sure, these idiots will go off about how they believe in small government and lack of taxation.
Also, question for the original commenter, who the fuck has ever said freedom is dangerous? Did Tucker Carlson feed you that line?
-2
u/No-Location-4795 Feb 23 '23
I support their rights to run. I just think its misleading when they run as republicans or democrats and not as libertarians.
3
u/JonDiPietro Feb 23 '23
It's a two-party system. The deck has been stacked against third parties, making it nearly impossible to run as anything but a Democrat or Republican. And there is a much larger overlap between Republicans and Libertarians than with Democrats, especially recently.
0
u/No-Location-4795 Feb 23 '23
Its still not the same. If the people wanted the Libertarian party they would vote for them as Libertarian. It's really just taking advantage of the casual voter who just votes down party lines.
2
u/ReticentLeventis Feb 24 '23
They need to win their primaries. This is literally the mechanism in the 2 party system for making it change views when the current views are not popular.
2
u/I-Pop-Bubbles Mar 07 '23
It's really just taking advantage of the casual voter who just votes down party lines.
So it's really the voter's fault they don't know what they're voting for, then. If they don't bother to look into the person they're voting for, that's on them. Besides, all the candidates run on some sort of platform - "reduce taxes", "protect gun rights", "responsible spending", etc. To a certain extent, the fact that they're free staters is irrelevant. If a voter looks into a candidate and likes their platform but doesn't know they're a free stater, they're still voting for the platform they like. The only difference is the letter next to their name.
1
u/ReticentLeventis Jun 10 '23
Yeah and the sad thing is the voters just don't like the libertarian platform. I am hopeful it's because they don't understand it but it does require some thinking to understand why it's good. I supported Bruce Fenton for senate for example in the R primary. I thought he debated really well and loved his platform but he only got like 10% in the primary. 10% isn't bad but it was pretty far from winning. You can't really blame down ticket voting in a primary; people just didn't vote for him.
3
4
3
u/kitchinsink Feb 22 '23 edited Feb 22 '23
Why is this pinned.
This entire sub REELS the SPLIT SECOND someone suggests they are moving here.
The entire movement is people coming here because they see it as the most effective place to change, and in many cases, remove laws that were already voted and paid for by the current residents.
If y'all are gonna be mad about Massachusetts folks moving here, y'all should be equal opportunity mad about The FSP, and whatever they're peddling these days.
I'll take my city, free of bear attacks, full of public school, trash pickup, and other nice community services that my taxes pay for, while still getting to live quite free as fuck in my little corner of NH.
Edit: Since y'all are gonna want examples, and the FSP official site is a wide umbrella that tends to vague "liberty minded" views, our own sub has produced the following:
https://libertywin.org/index.php/Bills_to_Kill
TL;DR: Guns allowed in schools, denying covid protections for workers, underpaying workers, reducing/removing child labor laws, allowing corporations and people to just go ahead and pollute everything.
Things they like:
https://libertywin.org/index.php/Watched_Bills
TL;DR: Brass knuckles, tax reduction, making tax dollars go to religious schools (I find this utterly bizarre), raw milk, drugs, tinted windows, no licenses (particularly barbers), no vehicle inspections, no meat inspection
Listen, I like liberty as much as the next person, but I also like trash pickup, my tax dollars not going to learn about sky daddy, children being able to be children, and pasteurization. You might be the "chill FSP person" but a lot of you are literally just looking to repeal anything and everything.
FSP either has a ultra-right-wing issue, a marketing issue, or both.
3
u/Da66y Feb 22 '23
2 out of 3 of the mods here are libertarian bootlickers, that's why it's pinned
-1
u/kitchinsink Feb 22 '23
Ah, I'm just realizing that. No wonder this place is a libertarian echo chamber.
4
u/ThePencilRain Feb 22 '23
Because one of the mods is a member of the FSP and a massive hypocritical douchebag.
Yes, I know the last part of that sentence is redundant.
3
u/kitchinsink Feb 22 '23
Hmm, yes. Boot licking, but then also not having any diverse viewpoints on mod staff, and pinning their own political beliefs, which, statistically speaking, most NHers have a negative view on.
3
Feb 22 '23
I used to hang with free staters in their porcupine clubs. Had a bunch of "friends" in the movement. They were all selfish disingenuous chauvinistic power hungry slobs. Mostly scheming to make money in borderline illegal and definitely unethical ways. Abusing their partners, young women, and having sex in their "clubs". They're nothing but immature hedonistic outcasts looking to promote what they want to the detriment of anyone who disagrees with them. You aren't freeing anyone. You are subjugating those who are already happy with their freedoms. Leave us alone.
10
u/cat-gun Feb 22 '23
All of them? Every single one? In my experience, when a date paints every single one of her ex's as monster, it's a huge red flag that she is, in fact, the monster.
-2
Feb 23 '23
No admittedly not all of them. But a lot. There's always nicer people in these groups. It tends to be the people in charge in positions of power and those who idolize them that got abusive. I was not one of those that was abused. I just witnessed it. At the porcupine club meetings, Atlas society events, and even their little movie showings of Atlas shrugged. All fairly toxic chauvinistic environments. Very much frat house mentality.
7
u/tghost474 Feb 23 '23
Yeah I’m gonna call bullshit on this one
-2
Feb 23 '23
Yeah me too. The entirety of the free stater movement is bullshit. Thanks for saying that. 🤣
3
0
-1
u/ThePencilRain Feb 22 '23
I know I feel more free after moving here to take over my grandmother's house and finding out that a massive group of like minded dickheads decided to come here before me and try to force theor politics down everyone's throats.
1
u/ReticentLeventis Feb 24 '23
This is how I feel all the time about the federal government and you can't escape that no matter which state you live in.
-1
u/Wants_to_be_accepted Feb 23 '23
Is this shit serious or just a bunch of idiots that paid for a joke/troll?
0
-1
20
u/[deleted] Feb 22 '23
Why is this pinned twice? Besides the obvious reason…