Free State Project: Censorship is a Libertarian Value?

From the Concord Monitor:

A group of New Hampshire activists wants Rep. Cynthia Chase censured and impeached by her fellow state representatives.


A petition to the House was assembled and signed by 120 people, led by Darryl Perry, a Keene resident and Free State Project participant. It calls for Chase’s censure and impeachment over the comment, which the petition describes as showing “her intent to enact laws to interfere with protected rights” and “harm a specific group of people.”

Rep. Chase’s comments are available at the link.

From the Free State Project website:

We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant folks from all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors who agree to the political philosophy expressed in our Statement of Intent, that government exists at most to protect people’s rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else

This is a description of the folks they claim they want to move to NH: Neighborly. Tolerant. Protecting rights. Sounds mighty high minded, doesn’t it?

In reality,the Free Staters are people who bleat about rights 24/7 on internet forums, but it seems they believe THEIR rights are more important than anyone else’s. They’ve been railing on about Rep. Chase for weeks. Not only her words have been attacked, but on those forums they’ve had plenty to say about her physical appearance. Because of course, that’s high minded, tolerant, and neighborly.

Rep. Chase, I hasten to add, has filed NO legislation. She merely expressed an opinion. Apparently the FSP can’t handle freedom of speech, when it is used to speak against them.

Just a reminder: The Original Free State Manifesto, in which FSP founder Jason Sorens explains the intent of the Free State Project in moving to NH:

Once we’ve taken over the state government, we can slash state and local budgets, which make up a sizeable proportion of the tax and regulatory burden we face every day. Furthermore, we can eliminate substantial federal interference by refusing to take highway funds and the strings attached to them. Once we’ve accomplished these things, we can bargain with the national government over reducing the role of the national government in our state. We can use the threat of secession as leverage to do this.

This statement of intent has not been nullified. Jason Sorens has never come forth and repudiated his manifesto. Their intent is clear – they’re coming to NH to take over the state and eliminate our state government. And furthermore, it seems, if you dare speak out against them, they’re going to attack and punish you.

Censorship is an ugly, ugly word. One that has no place in a tolerant society.

That a group preaching freedom and liberty for themselves is willing to use censorship as a weapon against their critics shows them for what they are. Hypocrites.

And for the benefit of those of the FSP cult members who are trying to play semantics games – CENSORSHIP is what you’re attempting to do by calling for the CENSURE of Rep. Chase.

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.


cross-posted at susanthebruce

9 Responses to Free State Project: Censorship is a Libertarian Value?

  1. Rep. Jim Splaine January 29, 2013 at 6:57 pm #

    Theyz are a funny bunch of peoples. Cynthia Chase should be given a commendation for being honest, and re-elected to another term.

    Kind of weird that a “group” of people who try to make us feel they’re for a “free” anything want to shut up those who question their motives and so-called “ideals.”

    Time to ignore them, except of course we can’t — we have to keep an eye on them, otherwise they would want to take democracy and freedom away from more of us so they can get their own way for their own selfish purposes. Therein lies the danger of their “project.”

  2. Dean Barker January 30, 2013 at 5:38 am #

    Appears to be an inverse relationship between:

    attention seeking for “Free State Project” as victims.


    hiding “Free State Project” when fielding candidates for office under cover of “Republican” or “Democrat.”

  3. hannah January 30, 2013 at 5:06 pm #

    People who apparently have no self-restraint and resist being restrained, seem to be driven by a desperate need to restrain others. Their motto might well be, “stop the world, I want to get off.”

  4. BobRobertson January 30, 2013 at 5:48 pm #

    It makes no sense at all to try to restrict the rights of others, and then complain when one’s own rights are restricted. The essence of liberty is that everyone’s liberty must be defended, or no one has it. Liberty requires defend even the liberty of people who choose to do atrocious things.

    It’s sad that the two-party system requires that one identify as a Republican or Democrat in order to participate. The actual voting records of those who do so identify end up making the artificial distinction mean nothing at all.

    So how about lifting ballot access restrictions so a candidate doesn’t have to list one of only two parties, or any party, to be able to participate?

    • susanthe January 30, 2013 at 6:18 pm #

      You’re completely off topic Bob.

    • hannah January 31, 2013 at 4:10 am #

      The essence of liberty is mobility. Natural rights are derived from natural functions. Which is why all organisms, not just humans, have a right to live and mobile organisms have a right to relocate on an individual or generational basis. Most of the organisms we refer to as plants are designed, for example, to regenerate at some distance from the parent plant.That’s generational movement.

      The great conundrum of human existence seems to be that mobility, their own and that of other creatures, conflicts with their desire to have other things, including other people, stay in place to make them easier to find again. So, one man’s liberty is another man’s nuisance.

      If one assumes (preconceived notions are critical) that liberty is derived from motion, then “protecting liberty” is a self-contradictory, if not silly, idea. Because, “to protect” is to cover over and restrain from contact with the elements. It’s not quite as restrictive as “secure,” which refers to tying down or locking up — to prevent movement.

      Liberty and security are contradictions. But then, that’s typical of binary thinking. Everything has an opposite and, instead of being resolved or merged, the opposition is constant. And that’s how stasis is maintained. Conservatives, it seems, don’t need antagonists (enemies) to strive against, but to define themselves. Good cannot exist, except as the opposite of evil. It’s like a twin can’t be a twin, unless there’s another.

      “Free state” is also a contradiction. Conservatives seem to eschew subordinate modifiers in their conversation. Which is a little peculiar, given their allegiance to hierarchy.

  5. tchair January 31, 2013 at 8:20 am #

    Libertarians are Anarchist that are too affraid or lazy to move to Somalia


  1. Blue Hampshire Blogger Calls FSP Participants “Cult Members”, Fears We’ll “Eliminate our State Government” - Free Keene - January 30, 2013

    […] calling Free State Project participants “cult members” and claiming we support censorship, a Blue Hampshire blogger, “Susan the Bruce” has been busily cleaning her blog comments […]

  2. Blue Hampshire Blogger Calls FSP Participants “Cult Members”, Fears We’ll “Eliminate our State Government” - Unofficial Network - January 30, 2013

    […] calling Free State Project participants “cult members” and claiming we support censorship, a Blue Hampshire blogger, “Susan the Bruce” has been busily cleaning her personal blog […]

Site maintenance and hosting by Hoeferweb