Aren't Our Freedoms Meant to be Guaranteed for All?

The answer to the question is obvious.  Of course it is.  No one argues that.  Except that, once again, one of our progressive minded Democrats is being attacked because she “allegedly” offended a certain group of individuals.  This group being the said Free State Project.  Yes, they are the group who wants to take over the NH state government, reduce it to nothing, and finally seceding from the Federal Government, creating their own little utopia, a haven for lawlessness and irresponsibility, in our state.

The person, whose character and first amendment rights, under currently under attack, is Keene State Representative Cynthia Chase.   Representative Chase had this to say in a December article in Blue Hampshire:

Cynthia Chase
“In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today.  There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. . . . What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the ‘freedoms’ that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming.”

Of course the Conservosphere went nuts.  Accusations of “kool-aid drinking” liberals trying to place restrictions on conservatives,  another example of the “fascist” liberal agenda.  The cries of “I told you so!” are everywhere.  Naturally, Representative Chase's words were taken out of context, and misrepresented everywhere.  That's normally what conservatives do.  And Free Staters, though not necessarily socially conservative, are definitely financial conservatives.  And in order to claim persecution against them, they need to lie about what Representative Chase's comment actually means.

I won't beat the point to death, but there are two things to note:
1. Representative Chase frames her comments as being only her opinion.  Thus, not part of the “kool-aid drinking liberal” agenda.
2. Representative Chase put the word “freedom” in quotes, specifically to point out the hypocrisy of the Free State use of the word.

The Free Staters claim that any taxes or government infringes on the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.  In this Liberal's opinion, it is hypocrisy to claim to support the ideals of a government, while at the same time, trying to bring that government down.  They hide behind the social contract we have with our government while trying to undermine it.  In this Liberal's opinion, people who want to secede from our Union are traitors, ex-patriots.  But, in reality, they are citizens, and are constitutionally granted the right to say and think what they choose.  And I support that.  I wish they would devote their energies into creating a true utopia, such as the one outlined in the Constitution.  But you can't always get what you want.   And that's why the group is dangerous.  They want to protect what they consider to be their “freedoms”.  But that will come at the expense of our freedoms.

The Free State Project is an interesting group of individuals.  They believe in no government at all.  Their founder, Jason Sorens, wrote a manifesto in 2001, outlining a plan for the Free Sate Project.

The basic outline of the manifesto is presented here:

Phase 1 was to find a state that can easily be taken over.  There were criteria they were looking for, a relatively small population, limited regulations and laws, limited tax structure, etc.
Phase 2 was to get 20,000 or more people to move to that state.
Phase 3 would be to take over the government be running for office and getting elected.
Phase 4 would require the majority of elected lawmakers to reduce all government within the state.
Phase 5  would be to secede from the federal government.

Sounds like a plan?  Yes.  Good idea?  No.

These people represent the disgruntled among us.  And believe me, there is a lot to be disgruntled about.  But, in my opinion, they are focusing on the wrong people.  It's not the government that is the issue.  The issue is the stranglehold on our government that the wealthy, their corporations, and their associated lobbyists have, and continue to increase on a daily basis.  Rather than focus on the entities that cause our government to be ineffective in protecting its people, they choose to just remove the government from the picture altogether.

But where does that leave us?  If there is no government or laws to protect us, and our rights,  what happens to the rest of our New Hampshire citizens?  Their freedom from taxation, which supports public agencies, infringes on my freedom to be protected by  police and fire departments.  While it seems like they just want to be able to protect themselves, by shooting or threatening to shoot anyone who crosses them., what happens to those of us who don't want to shoot people?  Or threaten to shoot people?  How do I get protected?

Let's make one thing perfectly clear about our rights and freedoms.  Your rights end where my rights begin.  No discussion.  We all have rights, not just some of us.  And there is a line in which the over extension of my rights will, and must, infringe on your rights.  And we can;'t have this.  We have to protect everyone.  So we create a society that has rules.  And to protect everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, we must have public institutions.  And to have public institutions, we must support them with public funds, which we must collect through taxes.

If Free States truly want to create a tax-free zone, then they must move to a different land, one without a government already established.  They must create their utopia without ruining the “utopia in progress” that already exists.  Our Constitution is a great experiment in social liberty and equality.  It should not be trampled upon to create a different idea of liberty and equality.  It should be respected.

The goals of the Free State Project threaten the foundations of our Government, both federal and state. They threaten to create a “utopia” of lawlessness and total disregard for the citizens of New Hampshire who are already living here and are happy with the government we have.  So when Free Staters claim that only our “chosen” are welcome, they are in part correct.  But it isn't that we are unwelcoming to Free Staters as individuals.  But we should be unwelcoming to anyone who wants to move into our state for the express reason to dismantle it.

What I say to Free Staters is simple:  I support progress,  freedom, liberty, and equity for all, and that includes you.  I am sorry that you don't include my beliefs in your idea of freedom.  But please, don't tread on me.   And don't tread on anyone who doesn't believe as you do.  That's un-American. So, yes, you ideas of changing our state are not welcome in New Hampshire.  We like New Hampshire just the way it is.  We wish you'd like it, too.


Read More About It:

Announcement: The Free State Project, Libertarian Enterprise Number 131, July 2001.

Petition calls for censure, impeachment of N.H. representative over Free State Project comment 

2013 Petitions to the New Hampshire House

NH Liberty Party

The New Hampshire Liberty Party was formed to promote independence from the federal government and for the individual.  NHLP candidates will promote the idea of NH seceding from the federal government and also support individual liberty.

Free State Project: Censorship is a Libertarian Value?

Susan the Bruce continues the discussion in the comments section in her own blog.

Live Free or Move
Image Credits