Talk:Free State Project

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Statue of Liberty joke is pretty weak, considering it wasn't paid for with US Gov't money and considering it's called the Statue of, um, Liberty. I'm not very good at nice-sounding snark, so I'll let one of you guys do it :) JazzMan 00:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Yup, bad joke, it should die. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:45, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Nope, it was paid for with French government money and maintained with U.S. government money via the National Park Service. Secret Squirrel 09:41, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

There is nothing "anti-government" about Freedom. Following our Constitution defines what government is. Other acts performed under color of law are the actions of the politicians who perform them.

For example, when politicians declare and "emergency", and violate people's rights, when the Congress gives the president "new powers", these are the actions of those who do them, not of government.

Our government cannot deprive us of our Rights. Our Rights were bestowed on us by our Creator and are unalienable, which means no legitimate government can take them away from us.

The Congress cannot give the president new powers. The president's powers are defined in the Constitution. Congress has no power to bestow new powers other than by amending the Constitution, with the consent of three quarters of the states.

Pointing out these facts does not make one "anti-government". Just the opposite. The Declaration defines the proper role of government which is to PROTECT our Rights. The Declaration states the governments are instituted among men to secure these Rights...

Is it "anti-government" to insist that government protect our Rights, rather than trample them? — Unsigned, by: Abukamoon / talk / contribs

What rights are you being deprived of? Tetronian you're clueless 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
More to the point, what rights are you being deprived of at a local level? All your complaints are about federal government, not state government. Taking over New Hampshire/Wyoming won't do anything about Congress. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quite bullshit[edit]

Considering that the FSP includes moderate as well as radical libertarians on both the left and the right of the movement, calling it "bullshit" isn't very rational. I don't get the knee-jerk anti-libertarianism here. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

It is more that the FSP people appear to have their heads in the sand, dreaming ridiculous pipe-dreams. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why New Hampshire?[edit]

Why did they choose NH? there are lower-populated states where 20,000 people could have a bigger influence. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC it's something because it has a good track record on rights and politicians not interfering, or something. There's definitely something about the state not voting to raise their base salary in over a century. ADK...I'll castigate your street sign! 17:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that was confusing with something else, here's the Why New Hampshire page. ADK...I'll feel your brand! 17:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
(EC) No seatbelt laws, state motto is live free or die, or something like that. ТyTalk. 17:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Though one could argue that the list of NH accolades would be considerably shortened once 20,000 hardcore libertarians turn up in the same spot. ADK...I'll agree your polyethylene! 17:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Plenty of recreational resources, including mountains,... Ahhh, plenty of mountains to hole up in when the goddam guvmint want you to help pay for stuff. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Statists trying to spin reality, what a surprise[edit]

Give me a break. It's a group of people who are willing to move to one area to try to see government out of their lives for once. Why is it you have to put your bullshit twist on that? Fuck, if all of the socialists moved to one state I would be happy as shit for them. Yeah, they're SO crazy because they would move to a new state to try to make a difference. Complete nutjobs, rights?

Libertarianism is a perfectly valid philosophy and if you really believe it's so insane, you need to start reading for once in your lifetime.— Unsigned, by: PrimeCut / talk / contribs

It's not a philosophy anymore than fascism is a philosophy, and yes, libertarians are nutjobs. --Frybread (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As a former Anarcho-Capitalist supporter, I can't imagine they'll be too pleased at what they see, should they succeed. Libertarianism is short-sighted, and if they want government out of their lives, they can move to an unsettled forest. ChrisB (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Gun laws reference removed[edit]

It was clearly inaccurate to the extent that NH has open carry everywhere within the state, shall-issue concealed carry (relatively permissive and the policy in a controlling majority of states), and no permits to purchase, nor owner licensing, nor registration before or after purchase, as well as state preemption of local gun laws (municipalities can pass nothing more restrictive than state law). See here. Frostbyte (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)