NHexit.com discussion

[Dave Ridley]

Received this message from the NAACP after inviting them to this discussion group; I've redacted the email addresses. For those of you who weren't already aware, I sent similar messages to various groups who lobby or what not on behalf of ethnic groups and immigrants.  I tried to cover them equally in one way or another but certainly could have missed some.  No other groups have responded thus far.

"From: Manchester Branch President
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 3:35 PM
To: RidleyReport
Cc: NAACPNHSEACOAST
Subject: NHEXIT

We decline your invitation to participate in the NHExit discussion.

Thank you.

--
Manchester NAACP Unit #2069

Woullard Lett - President
Claudette Williams - Ist Vice President
Sandra Plummer - Secretary
Jacqueline Davis - Treasurer
Brenda Lett - Health Committee Chair
Rev. Eric Jackson - Legal Redress Committee Chair
Zane Knoy - Membership Committee Chair "

I Sent this as a response about 36 hrs later:
<<Sorry for the slow response:  The invitation remains open should you change your mind. >>

[Russell Kanning]

good times

[andy1337]

DR: "in response to andy's suggestion I will probably add some sort of "talking point builder" to the list of roles that need filling."

This isn't really a a role that suits delegation. The reasons why NHexit should appeal to people, should be the core part of everything we work on, in my opinion. It's no good holding signs if the average person has no reason to agree with the signs. Independence happens if 51% of people vote for it.

1.35 million (ish) people live in NH. Something like a million of those are entitled to vote. 80% of people generally vote in referendums about major changes, so we need 400,001 votes, or thereabouts (If anyone has more accurate numbers, let me know). Assuming all 20,000 FSP people both move, and then vote, we're 5% of the way there. That's not enough.

My best suggestion for moving that number of people over to the cause would be that someone should write a compelling argument for a completely new form of government, where people choose their leaders individually rather than collectively. Most districts in most elections are somewhat split, but maybe there's a way of all the Republicans in a district being governed by the Republicans, and likewise for the Democrats. There may still be a need for some form of geographical government by an elected majority, but many other functions could be devolved, and operated on the basis of individual choice. Perhaps NHites could be persuaded that this experiment in governance should begin in their state. Perhaps not. If we were to go this route we'd have to first propose it and then gauge public opinion. I could probably put together a basic argument to this effect, although I'd need help for research, etc.

Once again, I'm a Voluntaryist, like many other people here, so please don't bother criticising any of my, or other people's ideas, on the basis of a lack of ideological purity. I'm absolutely aware of the lack of ideological purity. If you need 51%, ideology is a starting point, but from there it's all politics.

On the other hand, if we really do have an "I'd be doing great if it weren't for those damn Americans" point, then use that instead, because it's a much easier sell. But, unless someone is holding something back, we don't seem to have that.

[Russell Kanning]

in some ways you would only need a small %
in other ways we will need a huge majority to get independence, in whatever ways it happens
I don't see it happening by a 51% vote .... so I like the idea of changing people's minds ... plus that is a great means instead of politics.
Compelling arguments like you are suggesting have been written over and over the past few hundred years .... we can just use them

[Tom Sawyer]

There can be another more obtainable  goal then 51%.

People can begin to want to be left alone. To consider other ways of living their lives. To see that there are others that support change.

[blackie]

There can be another more obtainable  goal then 51%.

"You can fool some of them some of the time,
But you can only fool half them all of the time"

The Dead Milkmen - Life Is Shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEgkDuJyI0U

[Russell Kanning]

yea even if we made it to 51% sometime ... there would be steps getting there

[Erroneous_Logic]

Something to think about, rather than pushing NHexit, focus on all the ways that the federal government screws with people's lives. Real, measurable, visible things that they do. They take like a fifth of your paycheck. They make laws that get people arrested for plants. They regulate businesses out of existence. They blow up little kids, and the bombs have your face on them.
Point out to them all the reasons they should -hate- the federal government, and then they'll one day say, "Hey, what about that NHexit movement? That's starting to seem like a pretty good idea right about now."
Let them think that they're the ones that came up with it.

[Dave Ridley]

Andy I will think about writing something along the lines you suggested, but I'm not sure me writing something is automatically better than delegating it to others.   With regard to your idea of (as I understand it) retooling the NH system along voluntaryist lines...well I think if we simply had a New Hampshire free of DC, the remaining layers of government might be open to allowing experimentation in one small area.  Designating a free zone of sorts in an unpopulated area purchased by freedom lovers.  Trying to retool the NH system however is a separate issue from independence...and the thing I like about independence-focus is that it does not try and re-invent all the wheels...it just takes the wheel which is working least badly and disconnects it from the burning car.  It's ameliorative rather than utiopian, dealing with known proven quantities....yet takes a massive step in the direction of freedom.
   

[Dave Ridley]

Something to think about, rather than pushing NHexit, focus on all the ways that the federal government screws with people's lives.

Chan Cabler at NHindependence.org has been talking up a concept he calls "healing federal hurts."  In my mind this could be turned into a Red Cross type charity that appears on the scene when the feds hurt someone.  His example was a  building in, I think , hooksett where OHSA (if I recall) stopped workers from taking snow off a roof because there was some sort of safety precaution that had not been taken.  The roof then collapsed.   What if in the future we, or someone,   had some sort of aid-squad that was always on 24 hour standy and could react in some humanitarian *and* civic way? 

[Dave Ridley]

andy what exactly can i do or not do that would help address the concerns in your most recent message above?

[Russell Kanning]

or in the car analogy .... some of us could kick the fed thugs out of the car and then others can start working on smaller details like cleaning the floor

[Free libertarian]

Panarchy is a concept that many people haven't heard of, so when I hear talk of "solutions", from "normal people" the solutions often never consider panarchy.   I sometimes bring it up in my discussions with people, but frankly it's hard to have discussions with some people if they still believe in the existing paradigm as a necessary constant.

Reminds me of being a young kid and trying to explain the Santa Claus scam to the lingering hold outs.


Edit note - After reading my post above I wanted to make sure it wasn't construed as harshing on NHexit, which I think is a great idea to foment discussion and thought.  I stand by my Santa Claus statement as written though.
 

[Dave Ridley]

Sent this to my media contact list.

'NH: Trump adviser's alleged Hillary-execution statement has stunning, secession-related precedent

NH State Rep Al Baldasaro's reported controversial comments about executing Hillary Clinton...have an interesting historical precedent in another restless, northern region of the Western World.  But the results appear to have been strikingly different.

Tommy Sheppard, a nationalist member of the Scottish Parliament, apparently said this regarding the royal wedding of a relatively harmless Kate Middleton: "Off with their heads."  Unlike Baldasaro, who's reportedly facing investigation by America's dreaded secret police, Wikipedia reports that Sheppard merely faced "some criticism."

Why the difference?  Perhaps it's because Scotland has a strong independence movement.   London is reluctant to do anything that might push Scotland toward secession. New Hampshire's independence movement, though growing, is decades behind.  That leaves us vulnerable to DC's de-facto restrictions on controversial speech.

Baldasaro's comments are often disagreeable; believe me I've argued with him enough times in the last decade to know it first hand. But his poor treatment is a reminder of Washington's double standard.  You can safely advocate the assassination of Julian Assange...as many U.S. pols/pundits did when he released Federal atrocity data to the public. But if you weigh in on when the death penalty should be applied, and whether it should be applied to a big Fed politician, Washington investigates.  Maybe later they ruin your life.

The overzealous Secret Service wouldn't so easily be able to come after NH state reps over salty speech, if NH were an independent country.  And they would *choose* not to do so if NH merely had a strong independence movement like Scotland.  Please consider the peaceable alternative to subservience and censorship...look into the concept of New Hampshire independence and entertain it with an open mind. 

Dave Ridley
http://nhexit.com'

[Free libertarian]

Sigh, sometimes Al Baldasoro is a butter knife in a drawer full of surgical instruments.  Blunt, dull and not too sharp.