New Hampshire Underground

New Hampshire Underground => Underground Projects => Secession => Topic started by: painted on November 20, 2007, 11:40 PM NHFT

Title: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: painted on November 20, 2007, 11:40 PM NHFT
I think it would send an awesome message to the federal government if NH seceded from the union.  We also wouldn't have to pay income tax and financially support unjust wars....  I'm new here so I don't know anything about our goals.  Is this one of the political goals we are trying to achieve?  or is it taboo?
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: CNHT on November 20, 2007, 11:54 PM NHFT
I think it would send an awesome message to the federal government if NH seceded from the union.  We also wouldn't have to pay income tax and financially support unjust wars....  I'm new here so I don't know anything about our goals.  Is this one of the political goals we are trying to achieve?  or is it taboo?

NO
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: painted on November 21, 2007, 12:15 AM NHFT
So what's FSP's stance on secession?

BTW, what's karma and how does it work?
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: d_goddard on November 21, 2007, 12:24 AM NHFT
So what's FSP's stance on secession?
FSP has no stance on any specific issue.

Secession was discussed ("plotted" would not be a completely improper description) at the NH Liberty Alliance Constitution Training (http://nhliberty.org/?q=nh_constitution_class). Video of the secession-related bit is here (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-8628785046838329023&hl=en)
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: CNHT on November 21, 2007, 12:25 AM NHFT
So what's FSP's stance on secession?

BTW, what's karma and how does it work?

FSP takes no political stances. They simply urge you to move to a state where you are close enough to your government to make a difference. And many FSPers are invoved in doing great work at the statehouse, or in their local town groups, against corruption, spending, and loss of freedoms.

You asked how we felt about it and weighed in with my opinions and others may vary. To expound, I think it's a waste of time. In NH we were just taken over by the Democrats for the first time in 80 years. Now we are losing freedoms by the dozens and our taxes and budgets have gone sky high. We are about to be fleeced with a court order to 'define' education and pay for it at the state level.

We need to work on getting the state BACK to fiscal sanity first, let alone ask people to secede. This bunch in power loves government more than ever and you think you can ask them to secede, To where? The UN bio-region? Geesh. (Then again maybe these lefty statists we have in the legislature now would love that...)


Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: painted on November 21, 2007, 12:53 AM NHFT
Yuck, even NH is going towards socialism and big government?  Do we have any hope left in US?
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: CNHT on November 21, 2007, 01:17 AM NHFT
Yuck, even NH is going towards socialism and big government?  Do we have any hope left in US?


Well we've had to brace for this, but I figured the arrival of 500 FSPers might help. Some do not like to get involved with this stuff, some do. I wish more would.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: Kat Kanning on November 21, 2007, 01:48 AM NHFT
There's a whole area for secession talk on this forum.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: KBCraig on November 21, 2007, 04:17 AM NHFT
When joining a discussion forum, it's always a good idea to lurk for a bit, and to search previous threads before blurting out something new.

As it turns out, secession isn't "something new". There's been a lot of discussion about it. See that "search" box above? Just type in "secession", and read to your heart's delight.

Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 21, 2007, 05:57 AM NHFT
So what's FSP's stance on secession?

BTW, what's karma and how does it work?

FSP takes no political stances. They simply urge you to move to a state where you are close enough to your government to make a difference. And many FSPers are invoved in doing great work at the statehouse, or in their local town groups, against corruption, spending, and loss of freedoms.

You asked how we felt about it and weighed in with my opinions and others may vary. To expound, I think it's a waste of time. In NH we were just taken over by the Democrats for the first time in 80 years. Now we are losing freedoms by the dozens and our taxes and budgets have gone sky high. We are about to be fleeced with a court order to 'define' education and pay for it at the state level.

We need to work on getting the state BACK to fiscal sanity first, let alone ask people to secede. This bunch in power loves government more than ever and you think you can ask them to secede, To where? The UN bio-region? Geesh. (Then again maybe these lefty statists we have in the legislature now would love that...)




They used that to get elected, but will never act on it... just dangle it in front of constituents that feel harmed by the property tax.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: d_goddard on November 21, 2007, 10:07 AM NHFT
just dangle it in front of constituents that feel harmed by the property tax.

The Socialists are a step ahead of you.
When the "education adequacy" funding fiasco finally translates into money coming out of people's property taxes, a lot of people are literally going to lose their homes because they're unable to pay.

That's when they plan to introduce an income or sales tax... so spread the burden more equally and fairly.
If the voters of NH fall for it... they get in an income tax, and their property tax goes down for a few years, before it comes right back to where it was, and then we're like every other state.

Checkmate, unless fiscal conservatives regain control of the House or Senate in '08.

Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 21, 2007, 11:53 AM NHFT
I meant the education funding fiasco will never translate into dollars beyond what we have today... it was only used as an election point.

The economics just doesn't work. They'll try to quilt something together like this mandatory kindergarten thing... but even that will be more costly than they suspect.

The State has always avoided a general income or sales tax because the Legislature would have to support business growth...
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: d_goddard on November 21, 2007, 12:45 PM NHFT
Please don't take this the wrong way, as it's evident we are 100% on the same side of this issue.
But, having spent a lot of time observing House committees in the past year, I do not believe you fully appreciate the axe that is being sharpened for our state (to be fair, neither do 95%+ of the NH population)

I meant the education funding fiasco will never translate into dollars beyond what we have today
You are incorrect. We just got our first-ever $10 Billion budget.
Want to bet they're shooting for $13 Billion in 2008?
I'd be willing to put actual money on that prediction, by the way...

The economics just doesn't work. They'll try to quilt something together like this mandatory kindergarten thing... but even that will be more costly than they suspect.
The fact that the economics won't work is the last thing these people worry about. Have you testified before the Commerce committee lately? As a whole, they don't understand how basic supply-and-demand works in everyday situations. I am not exaggerating.

The State has always avoided a general income or sales tax because the Legislature would have to support business growth...
Wrong.
We have always avoided a general income or sales tax because we had a majority of legislators who did not actively want one.

THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: CNHT on November 21, 2007, 11:56 PM NHFT
:clap:


Yay Denis!

WHY do people fail to see the URGENCY OF THIS?
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: painted on November 22, 2007, 12:16 AM NHFT
Yuck, even NH is going towards socialism and big government?  Do we have any hope left in US?


Well we've had to brace for this, but I figured the arrival of 500 FSPers might help. Some do not like to get involved with this stuff, some do. I wish more would.

That is sad.  I thought the whole point of FSP was to have activists, not ppl who will do nothing.  When I get there, I wana be like Alex Jones and bullhorn these issues in big towns.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: Dreepa on November 22, 2007, 12:23 AM NHFT
Yuck, even NH is going towards socialism and big government?  Do we have any hope left in US?


Well we've had to brace for this, but I figured the arrival of 500 FSPers might help. Some do not like to get involved with this stuff, some do. I wish more would.

That is sad.  I thought the whole point of FSP was to have activists, not ppl who will do nothing.  When I get there, I wana be like Alex Jones and bullhorn these issues in big towns.

More come everyday.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: CNHT on November 22, 2007, 12:51 AM NHFT
Yuck, even NH is going towards socialism and big government?  Do we have any hope left in US?


Well we've had to brace for this, but I figured the arrival of 500 FSPers might help. Some do not like to get involved with this stuff, some do. I wish more would.

That is sad.  I thought the whole point of FSP was to have activists, not ppl who will do nothing.  When I get there, I wana be like Alex Jones and bullhorn these issues in big towns.


Get yourself here and I'll put you to work for sure.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: painted on November 22, 2007, 01:04 AM NHFT
Yuck, even NH is going towards socialism and big government?  Do we have any hope left in US?


Well we've had to brace for this, but I figured the arrival of 500 FSPers might help. Some do not like to get involved with this stuff, some do. I wish more would.

That is sad.  I thought the whole point of FSP was to have activists, not ppl who will do nothing.  When I get there, I wana be like Alex Jones and bullhorn these issues in big towns.


Get yourself here and I'll put you to work for sure.


Sounds great.  I'll be done with military in two years. :)
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 23, 2007, 12:50 AM NHFT
:clap:


Yay Denis!

WHY do people fail to see the URGENCY OF THIS?

It not a lack of urgency. Its an understanding of the system. In NH, Legislators are largely whores... they are always in campaign mode. This is why the issue is never put to rest.
The masses want lower taxes... but do not understand that lower spending is required to achieve this result.
So the politically astute legislators always look to tax either minority groups, or those without the vote.
General income, sales, or property taxes don't meet this criteria.
The 'floated' solution I heard recently will look to place a statewide property tax on non-primary residences (missing those pesky voters)... and imposing a luxury tax on goods over $10K/$30K for autos (hitting those minority groups). But even this mastery of politics will still only raise $800M, and will cause towns with high priced vacation properties to see a drop in valuations going forward.

The biggest threat to the Dems would have been a SC order to solve the problem this next year... or face a open judicial declaration that the current system is unconstitutional. Leading to thousands of property owners ignoring that part of their taxes.

An issuance of State funding also includes the threat of vouchers... that local funding has less risk of.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: CSAnarchist on August 10, 2008, 09:04 PM NHFT
Secede by force. So obviously sanity in NH isn't at a straight point, but those who are like anarchists can still do something about it. Why sit around waiting for people who are insane to learn how to not be insane? When has that ever happened?? Think back to the Civil War, we seceded over slavery. Secede, now, over the mental, physical, and political state of the government.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: FreelanceFreedomFighter on August 21, 2008, 08:24 AM NHFT
Think back to the Civil War, we seceded over slavery. Secede, now, over the mental, physical, and political state of the government.

No... That was pretty far down the list. The War for Southern Independence was started over economics. The U.S. was heavily taxing the products from the South being sent North or to other countries and then giving that money to the Industrial barons in the North. In 1856 ~65% of the U.S. revenues were coming from the South, but over 65% of the funds/subsidies given back from the U.S. went to the North. The South finally had enough and seceded. It had already been agreed by that point that any new territories/states would be slave free States. (There was a short period where new territories/states were allowed to chose which to be, but that was quickly stopped and the enforcement of "free" states started.)  I don't want to get into a "South vs. North" debate/discussion/argument, but thought it necessary to clarify the primary reason for secession.

BTW, another tidbit of information that is interesting concerning secession. The first state to ever threaten secession was... (drum roll puhleeze) Massachusetts (long before the South ever did)... and the next handful that threatened secession were, RI, Conn & NY, going along with Massachusetts in protest against actions of the U.S. government. I don't have my reference material right at hand, so I don't remember what the egregious act of the Feds was exactly... but it wasn't slavery.

Regardless, until Appomattox (where "State's Rights" died), it was the common feeling and belief by the citizenry that secession was a completely legitimate and viable path. In fact, initially the seceding Southern States were simply allowed to leave. It wasn't until Abe figured out that the treasury wasn't filling us so fast that he decided that it shouldn't be allowed. Most folks in the North basically said "fine" in regards to the secession of the South. That is why Abe had to instigate conscription to man the U.S. army, but the C.S. was basically a volunteer force. That was just a round-about way for me to say that secession shouldn't be an issue, especially from the perspective of our inalienable Rights.


Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: BillKauffman on August 21, 2008, 10:38 AM NHFT
Quote
The first state to ever threaten secession was... (drum roll puhleeze) Massachusetts (long before the South ever did)... and the next handful that threatened secession were, RI, Conn & NY, going along with Massachusetts in protest against actions of the U.S. government. I don't have my reference material right at hand, so I don't remember what the egregious act of the Feds was exactly... but it wasn't slavery.

The issue was the war of 1812 and Madison's ending legal trade with England crippled the New England economy (England actually blockaded). See the "Hartford Convention" in 1814/1815.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention)
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: bigmike on August 21, 2008, 11:40 AM NHFT
maybe we need some threats to the feds like the sooners did.

Saturday, June 14, 2008
Are the winds of secession blowing in Oklahoma?

Not really a statement of secession so much as a statement to piss off, but these days any degree of standing up to the federal cronies is worthy of some praise.

Oklahoma Declares Sovereignty

    STATE OF OKLAHOMA
    2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
    HOUSE JOINT
    RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
    AS INTRODUCED
    A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; and directing distribution.

    WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and

    WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

    WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

    WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

    WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

    WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

    WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

    THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

    THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

    THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

    http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documen...JR1089_int.pdf

    http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Vot...e=okh01983.txt
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: David on August 21, 2008, 12:49 PM NHFT
Secede by force. So obviously sanity in NH isn't at a straight point, but those who are like anarchists can still do something about it. Why sit around waiting for people who are insane to learn how to not be insane? When has that ever happened?? Think back to the Civil War, we seceded over slavery. Secede, now, over the mental, physical, and political state of the government.
Violence and threats of violence are not welcome on this forum. 
They will murder you like they did the waco people. 
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 22, 2008, 08:04 AM NHFT
NH already declared its sovereignty... in 1784.

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

June 2, 1784


Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on August 22, 2008, 08:54 PM NHFT
NH already declared its sovereignty... in 1784.

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

June 2, 1784


Ink on a page. When’s the last time they did anything substantive to remind the Feds of this?
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 23, 2008, 10:49 PM NHFT
They do it a lot, but more and more to increase the amount of the bribe.

The last real time I can attest to was when Benson refused to obey the commerce clause and set up a State website to purchase pharmaceuticals in Quebec. Not that I agree with it, since the Canadian system is not free market in this area... but I did like the sentiment. It was as close to a secessionary statement that NH has gotten in a long time.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on August 25, 2008, 10:01 PM NHFT
They do it a lot, but more and more to increase the amount of the bribe.

The last real time I can attest to was when Benson refused to obey the commerce clause and set up a State website to purchase pharmaceuticals in Quebec. Not that I agree with it, since the Canadian system is not free market in this area... but I did like the sentiment. It was as close to a secessionary statement that NH has gotten in a long time.

Excellent—hopefully we’ll see more of this after the upcoming elections… >:D
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 27, 2008, 04:29 PM NHFT
Its doubtful.
His Excellency Craig Benson was after all in violation of other parts of the NH Constitution, but was trying to make a point. Just didn't have another politically expedient example at hand.

If we truly were to see something along State Sovereignty lines... I would be largely amazed.
As I've stated much of what the Federal Government does is contractually-based, not constitutionally-based.
The best I could hope for would be a revision from the current course of relying on the federal government financially. Maybe not all at once... but in small provisions.
It would at least show we're moving in the logical direction.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: BagOfEyebrows on December 09, 2008, 07:30 AM NHFT
NH already declared its sovereignty... in 1784.

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

June 2, 1784




and Oklahoma did just the opposite in their state constitution, which starts off like this:

  Section I-1: Supreme law of land.
     The State of Oklahoma is an inseparable part of the Federal
Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law
of the land.



They'd have to ammend their state constitution first, in order to unbind themselves from the union, I think?
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 09, 2008, 08:49 AM NHFT
Most likely an understanding by its writers that Oklahoma was purchased territory.
They would have stronger a stronger case that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstititonal.

So its really a matter of which way they went.

But for NH to cede it would need to begin acting like a country... and in fact if it acted like a country without secession occuring... the point would be moot.
 
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: KBCraig on December 09, 2008, 01:06 PM NHFT
Most likely an understanding by its writers that Oklahoma was purchased territory.

Even more likely, it's because "Oklahoma" was created by the federal government in 1907, well after secession was a settled matter, and while carpetbagging was still in full force.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: BagOfEyebrows on December 09, 2008, 05:25 PM NHFT
Most likely an understanding by its writers that Oklahoma was purchased territory.

Even more likely, it's because "Oklahoma" was created by the federal government in 1907, well after secession was a settled matter, and while carpetbagging was still in full force.


I think it had most to do with the composition of the delegates who wrote it - of the 112 delegates, 99 were Democrats.  Here's a pretty interesting write up on it that I found a while back:  http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/O/OK036.html     I haven't fact checked any of it yet, but it's full of basic info with only a little bit here and there of personal opinion type stuff.

What's carpetbagging? 
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: error on December 10, 2008, 01:01 AM NHFT
Do you live in Oklahoma? Time to get out of that dust bowl.
Title: Re: Anyone interested in secession?
Post by: BagOfEyebrows on December 10, 2008, 04:04 PM NHFT
Do you live in Oklahoma? Time to get out of that dust bowl.

I wasn't sure if you were asking me if I live in Oklahoma, but just in case: no, thank gosh, I don't.   

Another state I'd move out of very, very quickly is Illinois.  At first, I thought it was fantastic that so many voters in 2008 voted against the constitutional convention (for their state constitution, which they are asked every 20 years to vote on, because of an article in their state constitution that stipulates it happen) - until I read their preamble.  Illinois is a state where a Constitutional Convention (in 20 years, with time to educate the youth/current elected officials on the role of government) might actually be a good idea.  Not yet, though, because too many just still don't understand the principles of liberty and freedom or the role of government.

Check out the Illinois preamble:  We, the People of the State of Illinois — grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors — in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality; assure legal, social and economic justice; provide opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves and our posterity - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Illinois

Key parts of concern:  eliminate poverty and inequality

1. eliminating poverty is not the role of government - so the question is, by what method will they be eradicating poverty?  Governments, once they take on issues that are not a role of government, only have a few methods they can (and do) implement.  Through forced taxation/charity by force (inhumane for both giver and receiver and unsustainable)  - and then government beaucracy set up to distribute/manage/dictate a redestribution of wealth (neither cost effective or compassionate, as it promotes dependence and class wars.)  Poverty actually becomes a vicious cycle and is never 'eliminated' but made a constant and never-ending 'battle' that can not be won... poverty ends when people are taught to be self sufficient, creative, and live within their means.  The seeking and obtaining of happiness is not reliant on a certain financial bracket - some of the happiest people I know are or would be considered 'poor' by some, in financial ways.  Not everyone in poverty seeks to be rescued from it - some enjoy the simplicity of life's other blessings that can't be bought with money (re: family, friends, religion/faith, accomplishing personal goals/efforts.)  Take the Amish, for instance... they aren't known for their weath, in terms of dollars, but they are considered some of the most centered, peaceful and sustainable communities on this planet.  And as another example, a lot of freestaters aren't wealthy, but they are centered, peaceful and sustainable in their new community(s) :)

2. The equalities established (re: right to life, liberty, acquiring/protecting property, seeking/obtaining of happiness) along with a few other inalienable/unalienable rights that aren't cited in constitutions but are self evident (re: the right to one's own charity/good will towards mankind, the right to individual sovereignty, the right not to be forced into any government's or non-government's ideology/actions on a town/city, state, national or global scale without individual consent) are all the equalies we are born with - there's no way for governments to sustainably obtain/achieve , morally or logically, equality in social status, financial status, health status, or any of the other social aspects of life - the equality was supposed to be in regards to rights, not 'things' like money, education, etc.  When governments take on any of the 'things' where equality isn't capable of being achieved via force (because it breaks the code of life/peace in attempting to do so, re: don't lie, cheat, steal - keep promises made - the non-agression principle.) What you end up with, as a result, is less equality, not only in the original unalienable/inalienable rights, but you also end up with less equality even in terms of things like health care/education (which is why our public officials put their kids mostly in private schools, and why they have better health care coverage paid for by tax payers than the tax payers get from a tax funded health system - it is never equal!)

The superior become those in government itself - and it's a hard cycle to break, because the majority of them won't do anything to stop it from growing, in their favor they believe, without recognizing that it's even their own wellbeing that is put at risk - because the system will eventually collapse, and along with it, all of their pension plans, health care systems, and their dependence on the government itself will have to be confronted - it's the same dependence they pushed society, as a whole, to depend on... which is why elected government positions shouldn't be careers as they have become.  I'm not even sure it should be a paid positiion. 

It will all have to be phased out- with promises kept to those already in some positions.  But a lot of state and federal government workers are going to find themelves in a big, big mess in the upcoming years... they got bigger than the societies that support them, and got a phenomonally large portion of that society dependent upon them - which means, the pool of private sector workers got very, very small - but, large enough to revolt (peacefully - non compliance - etc.)

In Massachusetts, it got real bad - although you'll hear and read different numbres on this, the fact is that those who work for or are paid, in total or partially, from town/city, state/fed government is above 50% (has been since the late 1990s) - and one requirement they put in place not long ago for ANY town/city, state, fed job/funded worker is that the worker MUST register to vote.  They can't tell you how to vote, but needless to say, you will hear about (daily, for weeks, months) about how voting a certain way on certain issues (especially anything tax based) will lead to job layoffs.  Elections of any kind (local, state, federal, special) are seeing larger numbers of voters now, but it's the kind of voter with a conflict of interest, fraudulent information, and if they dare walk into work that day without an "I voted!" sticker on their jacket or shirt, they will be penalized in some way, shape or fashion (they can mandate you be a registered voter, but they can't tell you how to vote, only make suggestions, and I'm not sure if they can also force you to vote, but most will vote, because the implications are things like not moving up in the job, office hostility/politics, losing the job, etc.)   


That was just one of the things I found out about Massachusetts that had me investigating other states to move to - thankfully, around the time I learned of some parts of that data, it would only be a few years later that the Free State Project began.  It took a long while to get here, but I am here.  In New Hampshire.  Ironically, New Hampshire was one of the places we had discussed moving to anyways, because of how pro-liberty things were here even prior to the FSP.  My father had lived here once before, and visited up here quite often.

This kinda turned into more than I wanted to write about, but, well, there it is.   Kinda a huge way of saying I don't live in Oklahoma.  Hope that question was for me, after all this text, good gosh.  :stuffs sock in own mouth: -  :blush: