Free Stater convoy to escape California, enter New Hampshire

[slewofdamascus]

Any update? I assume they would have just arrived? Maybe you can do a follow-up?

[homeagent]

is she escaping or giving up on california?

why should NH  be the only state where people think for them selves?

If she would stay I would work w/ her and others to spread common sense here.

[fczwartek]

Wait till she finds out that there's no such thing as a "voluntary" society. I hope Ridley is on the scene to record that.

It will be like a child coming to realize, for the first time, that there is no santa.

A bitter-sweet moment maybe , but also a fundamental step in the process of growing up.

[TehBANN3D]

Actually, the majority of society IS voluntary and it's the people who insist that a parasitic class of people is at all necessary or natural who ought to grow up.

[fczwartek]

If the "majority of society IS voluntary" then what are you complaining about?

The simple fact is that no society anywhere ever has been "voluntary." Every society has rules and laws and people that enforce them. Without that society ceases to exist.  What you are really advocating for is anarchy.

As bad as our system is (and I would agree that many aspects of it are very bad) anarchy would not be an upgrade.

[lnd3005]

A state existing is better (less violent ... ?) than no state existing (anarchy)? How do you know that? I ask, b/c you write it like you're really sure.

The most prolific killers, rapists, and thieves in history, by far, have been state employees. Just saying.

What is a "society" in the sense you mean? Like, how would I know if I were in the same "society" as you? Can I be in more than one "society" at once?

What do you mean by "our system?" What system? And how is it partly "ours?"

[lnd3005]

Not partly "ours." Fully "ours," rather.

[fczwartek]

You can't seriously think that our situation would be improved by becoming Somalia. They have no real state, and that has turned out great for them, right?

Of course they still do have rules and "laws" and religious practices to follow there, and plenty of gung-ho fanatics willing to enforce them to the extreme.

So even a stateless society is not "voluntary." That would be impossible, because "voluntary" societies don't exist.

[TehBANN3D]

"What you are really advocating for is anarchy."

Possibly. However, that word has many contexts which I would not advocate.

"As bad as our system is (and I would agree that many aspects of it are very bad) anarchy would not be an upgrade."

See, that's the problem. You think there is an objective standard by which society is 'upgraded' or 'made better'. This is simply not the case. The better of some set of circumstances can only be determined by the subject...

[fczwartek]

There certainly are objective standards by which you can measure the vitality, health, wellness (ect.) of a society...

Things like:

-how many people are in jail and what crimes are they in jail for

-what percentage of the population lives in poverty

-what percentage of the population is unemployed

-infant mortality, violent crime rates, longevity, prevalent diseases

-access to clean water

-the state of national resources

...

There are many standard by which a society can improve.

[TehBANN3D]

I have no problem with people deciding it is useful to pay an organization like the United States for protection, welfare, transit, etc. However, when they decide that their idea of an "optimal" society should be everyone else's, there's a big problem, given that there is no standard by which they make their claim.

[TehBANN3D]

> If the [...] complaining about?

The part that isn't, obviously.

> The simple [...] "voluntary."

Irrelevant.

> Every society [...] enforce them.

False. Though law & order do support normative stability.

> Without [...] exist.

A society is a culmination of interpersonal interaction. An anthropic society is predicated on the existence of human interaction, the nature of which is not relevant to its existence. Something one might find dystopian is still a society.

[jcfan42]

Escaping California, as he says... maybe not so far from the truth after all...

[TehBANN3D]

I can imagine leaving SoCal or the Central Valley, but the rest of California is fucking awesome, New Hampshire is nothing compared to it.

[mcgrawtim123]

Lots of people are leaving California...at least the paler ones are.

[voodan]

I totally agree that being around like minded people is healthy.

[zartan7779]

she is pretty hot looking nice to see she is moving to new hampshire

[p00lman]

I broke my slef next week and I haven't bought a new one yet.

[drewby7777]

So, exactly how long will it take before the "transplants" start missing all the state services and programs that they left in Cali. and start demanding them from N.H. politicians? This has been the recent history of N.H. with people moving there from Mass, Conn, N.Y. VT, Me, All states with high taxes and many services. Is it no wonder that N.H. has seen its conservative roots go out the window for the promises of the Nanny state politician? Get back to defending the Constitution NH people!

[qstendious]

Why defend the "Constitution"? Take a good look at American history and you will see that the constitution never protected anyone and has been violated since it was created. People need to stop asking the government (a group of other people) for permission to live their lives as they see fit. The whole idea that some document called the "constitution" is where we derive our freedom and individual sovereignty is exactly the problem in my opinion. What if they amend away the "bill of rights"?

[dinkolino2]

well, if u want to have any law, you need to have it formulated and written. should there be a central authority enforcing it is a different question

[drewby7777]

No, we don't "derive" our freedom, liberty and sovereignty from the Constitution. The Constitution is a document that tells the federal gov't exactly what it's powers are and what they cannot do to us. Of course this doesn't apply to the states. People have the wrong idea that the Constitution also applies to the states, like with the 2nd amendment. If your state doesn't have a 2nd amendment type clause in it's Constitution then in that state you are NOT free to posess gun as I understand it.

[qstendious]

Again, I completely understand the constitution. And yes it does apply to the states. Each state of the union is bound by that contract. Every state has to comply with the bill of rights and every other detail of that document. There is no state that can deny you the right to bear arms or any other constitutional right, according to the constitution that is. States can regulate firearms in different manners but not outlaw them entirely.

[drewby7777]

Actually the founders set up this country so that the fed gov't would be small and the states and the people would have most ofd the power and that people would be free to move from state to state if one had more freedoms or whatever. The Constitution is the only thing we have federally. The reason no politician pays attention to it anymore is because no one makes them! And yes they could amend away our Bill of rights but that's why the founders made it very hard to amend the Constitution!

[qstendious]

Yes, I fully understand the design and intent of the constitution. It's just that it doesn't work. That is why I mentioned the bill of rights. It needs to be universally understood that individual sovereignty and personal freedom is not granted, gained, or derived from some words a person wrote down on a piece of paper. What if the bill of rights have not been included in the constitution? Would that mean we have no inherent right to the listed freedoms because they were not mentioned?

[drewby7777]

I believe as Jefferson and many founders did that our rights come from God, but with your example, we wouldn't have any legal rights stated in the bill of rights without the fore thought of those men proitecting us from the federal gov't. Also, I believe you are incorrect about the states having to comply with the bill of rights. The states ratified the constitution thus they created it and agreed on it's limits. They all have their on constitutions to run their own states as they are sovereign.

[drewby7777]

If that was not the case then why do the states still have their own Constitutions that they have to follow? Why wouldn't they simply follow the federal constitution? The answer is that the states were always meant to be independent and sovereign with most of the power being left to them and the people. I live in Mass. and there is no 2nd amendmentr type clause in the state constitution thus if I got turned down for gun ownership that would be it for me. I could move to another state though.

[drewby7777]

I know it sounds good that every state HAS to follow the Constitution above their own Constitutions, but I would warn against that. The reason is that as I said every state was meant to keep it's sovereignty and the federal gov't was created to serve the states not the other way around. If every state had to comply with the constitution in everything they did then they would have NO power to resist the federal gov't. States used to "Nullify" federal law often and still can and should!

[drewby7777]

If the states ratification of the Constitution was meant as a binding contract of state's "behavior" they would no longer be needed and the federal gov't would rule all people and all areas and that was never the intent of the founders and they strongly warned of that happening. A. Hamilton, a New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, advocated a national government that would have virtually abolished the states and even called for a president-for-life. The founders killed it

[qstendious]

You are confused. The way that you understand the constitution would essentially allow any state of the union to do as they please. Imprison people without due process, revoke freedom of speech, revoke the right to bear arms, conduct illegal searches and seizures, etc... I understand that states are sovereign and can do as they please, but their actions must be within constitutional legality. And yes, that includes respecting the bill of rights. Can someone else chime in on this?

[qstendious]

Sorry but you don't understand how the United States system of government operates. I don't think you understand what I am saying to you either. We have inalienable rights regardless of what any piece of paper says. I am pointing out an obvious flaw which for one assumes that our freedom is granted by government and two that it can be taken away. What I am saying is it needs to become a global universal consciousness that each person is free by nature, not by government or a piece of paper.

[rea1001]

What you have just spoken is knowledge that is hanging from a thread today. 50 years from now such conceptualization will be unheard of.

[RidleyReport]

According to Union Leader research most of the Mass. immigrant folks vote republican, even lately after the natives starting going democrat.

Also the border towns near mass. tend to elect pro liberty reps to the state house, another indicator that the Masshole Myth is more the exception than the rule.

[drewby7777]

I don't mean to doubt you, but I have a hard time believing that the "native" N.H. residents have swung wildly to the left demanding more and more services at the cost of more and more taxes, fees, etc out of the blue in the last few years when for years and years it was a pro conservative state without any outside influence be it transplants or outside lobbying groups.

[mackler]

I am sure they will arrive in time to receive their new names and sing the group song with the supreme exalted leader.

[soundmoneyfan]

some people don't like p00lman but he's here to remind us what it is like to be just like everyone else and not think for yourself! right on brother!

[DARKUTEC]

thank you terrafirma for putting it into perspective.

i do hope america keeps its soveirgnty

[DARKUTEC]

anglaismoyen it wouldnt surprise me bro every video man its like hes obsessed

[wdcsucks1]

if i was to move to the states, i would probably move to NH!!!

[anglaismoyen]

What's with voluntaryism? Is it just another rewording of anarchism to avoid the kneejerk perception of chaos and violence? or is it a separate philosophy?

[difranco1911]

The Word "Anarchy" has a long history of being characterized and associated with chaos and violence.

Voluntaryism is also a more apt description where society is based on voluntary transactions between individuals through mutual consent.

[RationalDischarge]

@anglaismoyen From what I understand, most Voluntaryists (including myself) are okay with the idea of certain groups of people coming together to form voluntary, unanimously chosen governments, as long as these governments don't have the authority to coerce people into living under them.

A lot of people could support a Voluntaryist society who would never support one built on anarchism, because capitalists would be free to be capitalists, communists free to be communists, etc.

[anglaismoyen]

Ah. Well, that actually sounds more like me to be honest.

[DARKUTEC]

what is wrong with this poolman every video he has a nasty thing to say.

what is wrong with you pal? serious. do u just have a distain for human life and other humans

[anglaismoyen]

He might be that idiot with the videos about how free staters are all lonely, sad souls who do nothing but grumble about how oppressed they are. Can't remember the channel but I get the idea he doesn't like free staters...

[terrafirma91]

DARKUTEC: Many comment sections are viewed by shills. Their job is to ridicule, and to invalidate legal statutes, Constitutional provisions that might interfere with globalism, and/or a heavy handed world government. Right now their biggest fear is state secession.

[p00lman]

Oh, I just got to the part where she admitted that she's an anarchist. At least she's honest about her idiocy.

[TheBravo345]

P00lman back to work whore

[p00lman]

They're going to blog a trip from California to New Hampshire? Wow, lady, you have the liberrty to take the poverty route. Congratulations!

[x11115]

well weren't they for this unconstitutional medical bill? I don't think I'm interested in a socialist program particularity one that violates the constitution. What ever happened to Ron Paul support? that seemed to fade fast..

[josda1000]

I can't wait... I really want to move early next year...

[mrethrift]

That's amazing. This whole thing is quite historical. I hope she brings a hundred of them.

I think they should negotiate with NH to capture Keene or they should incorporate a small town nearby.

Do any of them ever run for office?

Have there been any changes in the real estate values?

[rdhayes06]

Great Idea, I am hesitant to move up to NH but am super interested.

[Michael7893]

Frankly while I understand what you all are trying to do with the New Hampshire freestate movement. I just wish that we could have a larger free stater movement nationally.