Alexandria

New Hampshire State Representative Cynthia Chase promotes restricting freedom to keep libertarians and conservatives from moving there.

The Free state Project s an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government, to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.

Obviously, New Hampshire was chosen due its small size and “Live Free or Die” motto. The projects goals are similar to what happen in Summerville, TN when The Farm commune started and grew to significant size. But, with most Tennesseans not being worshipers of government and welcoming to alternative lifestyles (unlike the northeastern liberals who fake it to increase their power over others), The Farm was welcome and continues to thrive.

More here.

Cynthia Chase, a Democrat who serves in New Hampshire’s legislature, seeks to restrict the freedoms conservatives in that state enjoy in order to make the state “less welcoming to any conservative or libertarian planning on moving to her state,” Breitbart reported Thursday.

“In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today,” she wrote at Blue Hampshire.

Warner Todd Huston explains that a movement to make the state more conservative has been underway since 2001.

“The idea is that Americans of conservative ideals are to move to New Hampshire, gather in communities, run for office, and work to drive the state toward libertarianism and conservatism. It is called the ‘Free State Project’ and adherents are called ‘Free Staters,’” he wrote.

To combat this, Chase wants to pass laws specifically targeting conservatives to make the state less free.

“What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the ‘freedoms’ that they think they will find here,” Chase wrote.

“Of course, it is one thing to be a proponent of laws that might have the unintended consequences of restricting others’ freedoms. If one truly believes in such policies, well, they may be disastrously wrong, but at least they’d be honestly wrong. A fine point, to be sure,” Huston wrote.

But Chase is purposefully targeting those with whom she disagrees “all in the hopes that the citizens she is oppressing might move away from her state,” Huston added.

“Would it matter more or less if the speaker was talking about restricting the freedom of homosexuals? How about blacks or other minorities? What if they wanted to run off immigrants? How about scaring off the mentally ill or handicapped, or senior citizens? Honestly, does it matter? What class of law abiding citizens deserves to have their freedoms restricted simply because some elected official doesn’t agree with them, who they are, or what they believe?” Steve MacDonald asked at Granite Grok.

MacDonald said that Chase’s proposition “sounds more like tyranny than civility.”

Of course, having freedom loving people around is the last thing you want when you’re working hard to install a totalitarian government. (Hatred of people thinking differently than them is a hallmark of the modern Democratic Party.)