Making the transition

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I'm a free marketeer. I see all government, even a "limited, controlled one" as problematic. I think that this ideas of unowned or "public" property eventually opens up the question of "what use is permitted" which will always expand the scope of government in regulations on what can be done on that land et cetera.

I'm enamored by the idea of peaceful NH sucession and I'd be willing to support it but a few issues begin popping up for me. Firstly, the FSP is a project to get 20.000 liberty loving activists into New Hampshire to improve liberty. Fast forward to when the project is sucessful and NH is the most free state and there's growing movement to severing ties with the US.

I have a question regarding how a free market based society would interact with other nations in it's infancy. How would it trade freely with other countries while those countries are willing to use force to prevent it? For instance, how would one visit France without a passport, which French authorities would require? Landing illegally (French "authority" is no more binding on a free man than American so i use the term from the French perspective) could happen but would be extremely difficult and potentially deadly (recalling that they feel no compunction in using force) to the point where I think very few would find it worthwhile.

Assuming NH were ready to succeed, how many supporters of that process would no longer support it if the goal of that process were to establish another government. I've read NHRepublic.com and while I agree that it would be better than what we have right now, I can't but help think that supporting ANY government (and therefore recognizing that there exists ANY reason for a person not to be in 100% control of their life) wouldn't be worth it.

My thoughts aren't worded in the best way, but hopefully someone can chime in and the discussion can evolve.

[Caleb]

The thing is this:  For as long as you live, there will always be a state. So those worries aren't anything you have to worry about. The concept of anarchy doesn't prohibit government, it merely asks that government be voluntary, which eliminates the substance of any argument against it. If there was a government that called itself "New Hampshire" and consisted of people participating voluntarily, that group could issue passports to its members who asked for such a document.

[J’raxis 270145]

And even though technically they're not, I would just treat these foreign countries as pieces of private property, where the owners are asking me to do something I refuse to do (get a passport), and thus I simply won't set foot on their "property."

Why would you want to go to France if they're going to make you jump through idiotic hoops in order to do so?

[Caleb]

foie gras? 

[John Edward Mercier]

The thing is this:  For as long as you live, there will always be a state. So those worries aren't anything you have to worry about. The concept of anarchy doesn't prohibit government, it merely asks that government be voluntary, which eliminates the substance of any argument against it. If there was a government that called itself "New Hampshire" and consisted of people participating voluntarily, that group could issue passports to its members who asked for such a document.

This is what the government does now... we ask for their documents. We ask for or implement the use of their 'services', so much that those elected don't even know what the term civil service means.

[Free libertarian]

 If  New Hampshire were to secede...could we change the name to "Old Hampshire"?
Or would it be "New New hampshire"

  Anyway, as long as the federal government remains in the present overlord form, the chances at secession aren't very good.   Heck we in NH don't even get to call "our" airport in Manchester, the Manchester Airport...we're somehow made to tie the name in with Logan Airport in Boston. 

...if we do secede, I say we invade Vermont and bring freedom to them, besides we can take their land and their cows!  THEN, we strike at Maine and steal their trees, heck who knows we could, by our uh "manifest destiny" acquire land from sea to shining sea!         

[Puke]

Old Hampshire is in England. Some of us just use Shire.

[Raineyrocks]

foie gras? 

I though that was only legal in Amsterdam? 

[David]

Wrong grass, in fact, it isn't grass, it is gras.   

[John Edward Mercier]

foie gras? 

I though that was only legal in Amsterdam? 

French.
Duck or goose liver from a bird that has been fattened through force feeding.

[srqrebel]

The thing is this:  For as long as you live, there will always be a state...

Caleb, does it occur to you that this oft-expressed opinion of yours is pessimistic to the extreme? One thing is for certain -- if we all carried around that outlook, it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As long as you keep telling yourself that, you effectively undermine your motivation and potential for realizing just the opposite. If you are determined not to approach this problem from a positive angle, and ask "what if it can happen", then fine; but please don't undermine the productive optimism of others by spreading the destructive mime of pessimism.

[Caleb]

I don't tend toward pessimism, but am naturally an optimist. When an optimist expresses a "pessimistic" attitude, it's a safe bet that it is a realistic attitude.

It also doesn't matter a whit to how I choose to live my life. I'm always going to have to interact with people, even in a voluntary society. some of those people have delusional ideas, and make my life difficult or stand in the way of me doing what I want to do. The state is just one of those things, and you live your life as best as you can trying to get along with people and not compromising your principles. I'm not going to cooperate with it, to the extent that I can avoid it, but I'm not going to pretend that it might go away if only I could do certain other things. That's a waste of a perfectly good life, as far as I'm concerned. 

[memenode]

I don't think a government that is not coercive is really a government as we know it. If it is not a coercive monopoly then it can have competition. Sure, a particular company could be created and named as "New Hampshire" and have its business be to provide such documents as a passport to show to other countries. It could also be recognized by these other countries as valid issuer of passports, but not the only one.

As soon as enough people wouldn't like the operations of this company or would just think of ways to do it better, competion would arise, which never happens when the government is allowed. Government knows of no competition to itself.

I don't really see such a big deal in who would provide passports. French or anyone else would not be so blind not to realize that the system in New Hampshire is unique and peculiar and that they would therefore have to cooperate with it in a special way, which may include admitting a multitude of passport issuers as valid.

If it wouldn't.. then I think it'd be for their own disadvantage. Not only would NH people likely just move around the world regardless, but lack of cooperation with NH could also mean lack of benefits that they could extract from cooperating with the NH economy. And that economy, that Free Market, is truly our best bet for keeping peaceful relations with others. Why do anything else if you can profit most from cooperation.

[David]

I don't tend toward pessimism, but am naturally an optimist. When an optimist expresses a "pessimistic" attitude, it's a safe bet that it is a realistic attitude.

It also doesn't matter a whit to how I choose to live my life. I'm always going to have to interact with people, even in a voluntary society. some of those people have delusional ideas, and make my life difficult or stand in the way of me doing what I want to do. The state is just one of those things, and you live your life as best as you can trying to get along with people and not compromising your principles. I'm not going to cooperate with it, to the extent that I can avoid it, but I'm not going to pretend that it might go away if only I could do certain other things. That's a waste of a perfectly good life, as far as I'm concerned. 

Completely agree. 
People want gov't.  I think a more realistic goal isn't to 'dismantle' gov't, because we would be interfering with the wants of a vast majority of people, but rather pressure their gov't to leave us alone. 
I realize you don't like that sentiment Rebel, but I think it is realistic.  It is as wrong to interfere in the wants of others as it would be for them to interfere in our wants. 
In fact if people were less threatened by anarchists, they would very likely be more willing to at least speak out against gov't repression.  It is the gov't that is threatened by anarchists, not the average joe. 

[ancapagency]

I 'spect that if they wanted the advantage of dealing with "Shire" resident's, they'd accept a privately produced identity document as a "passport."  (perhaps from Shire bank or, if things go as planned, from The Ancap Agency or one of our future competitors.)