Progressives Try to Purge Libertarians from Occupy New Hampshire


Last week, the Concord Monitor reports, a progressive faction within New Hampshire's Occupy movement moved to expel members of the libertarian Free State Project. The progressives did this—savor the irony here—by attempting to turn the Occupation into a corporation:

A cause to unite us all.

a small number of Occupy New Hampshire members incorporated the movement as a nonprofit in order to boot their former bedfellows: the Free Staters. Also prohibited from future Occupy events are gun owners who openly carry….

Given the Facebook discussions since [Mark] Provost and the others filed corporation papers, it's not likely to be an amicable split. More likely, this is the start of a tug of war over what the Occupy movement becomes in New Hampshire.

"If the people associated with the (Free State Project) want to move here, fine," wrote Occupy member Julia Riber Pitt of Salem in a Facebook post last week. "But when they do things that upset the rest of NH's 1.3 million people, they deserve to be called out and shunned."

Ryan Glen Hirsch, an Occupy member from Pelham, responded to Pitt and others on the same Facebook thread: "You have no authority over me. I have no authority over you. You can choose to associate with me or not, but I am still just as much a member of OccupyNH as you."

Bill Gould wrote, "As they become the very thing they fight against…. Well, good luck to them lobbying against firearms in NH. I'm sure that will be a big hit."

To be a part of Provost's version of Occupy New Hampshire, you must sign a "solidarity statement" that requires, among other things, that you support a tax hike and oppose Citizens United.

The Monitor reports that many non-Free Staters in the Occupy movement have sided with the libertarians. [Update: And here's a left-libertarian who's siding with Provost, at least as far as divorcing Occupy from the Free Staters is concerned; I don't know how she feels about incorporating or imposing the solidarity statement.] The Monitor story also includes the phrase "Rep. Seth Cohn, a Canterbury Republican who calls himself both a Free Stater and an Occupier"—words that, if nothing else, say something about New Hampshire's unique political culture.

Via Free Keene, which describes the incorporators as "a splinter group" that "made lots of noise recently about why they have left." The Free Keeners claim that "most of Occupy did not go with them, as most of Occupy are open-minded folks who value the participation of 'Free Staters.'"

NEXT: A.M. Links: Romney Blasts White House Over National Security Leaks, More Police Protests in Anaheim, One Way Mission to Mars Envisioned for 2023

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Will Willkerson call your office. I thought liberaltarianism was the future?

    1. Yes, because who couldn’t see the fragility of a political alliance based on shared cultural tastes?

      1. I can understand why Wilkerson and others thought mutual douche bagdome might be enough to bond with liberals.

        1. Well, they both hated the same people so Will was probably thinking the “enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

          1. True, libertarians hate liberals and liberals hate themselves.

    2. Shriek/Palin’s Butt Plug is the brave new world we will live in.

  2. But when they do things that upset the rest of NH’s 1.3 million people me, they deserve to be called out and shunned.


  3. “But when they do things that upset the rest of NH’s 1.3 million people, they deserve to be called out and shunned.”

    Expel Free Staters because they upset people?

    I thought the whole purpose of the Occupy movement was to upset people.

    How do you occupy something without upsetting people?

    And what exactly are the accusing the Free Staters of doing that upset NH’s 1.3 million people?

    1. And what exactly are the accusing the Free Staters of doing that upset NH’s 1.3 million people?

      Promoting free market principles, a.k.a. “economic injustice” to these tardbabies.

      1. Okay, yeah, so they think they’re representing 1.3 million people in New Hampshire, but if they’re trying to kick out the libertarians, then shouldn’t they dial that number down a bit?

        How’s Gary Johnson polling in New Hampshire? Seems to me that kicking the libertarians out of the movement, they should stop claiming to represent the 99%…

        Couldn’t possibly be more than 97.3%, now–tops!

          1. Okay!

            93% then!

            Occupy New Hampshire is not part of the 99%!

            They’re, at most, part of the 93%.

            1. They need to deduct those New Hampsirians who want to see Occupy ground up for fiber supplement, too.

          2. How big is Romney support? 43%?

            I am pretty sure Romney voters are not big fans of OWS…and nor are OWS voters fans of Romney voters.

    2. upset thee, not me.

  4. Gaia bless them, they make it easy.

  5. It kinda reminds me of the ending of Animal Farm, when the animals were looking in the windows of the farmhouse seeing the humans and the pigs partying together and not being able to tell them apart.

  6. Uh…what are supposed libertarians doing as part of Occupy NH? Aren’t most of Occupy’s stated desires explicitly redistributionist and collectivist?

    1. Some Libertarians honestly believe that because Liberals listen to the right music and do all the right cultural things, that liberals are their friends.

      1. Real Libertarians, or just pretend ones like Weigel?

        1. I know more than one person who claims to be Libertarian, but when you ask them about issues it quickly reveals the fact that they are really SoCon, NeoCon, or some other assorted flavor of statist/authoritarian. So apparently, they think being Libertarian is cool for whatever reason, they just have no idea what it means.

          The best test question, IMHO, is always ‘So what do you think about legalizing all drugs?’ That usually paralyzes a pretend Libertarian for a few moments. Then they stutter something that starts with ‘well, I have children…’

    2. That was my question.

      I guess there’s a lot of agrarian libertarians that would line up with some factions of the Occupiers on issues such as personal hygeine, female dreadlocks and uncomfortable,scratch, cruelty free sweaters.

      Then the Occupiers learned that the libertarians actually made their sweaters instead of buying them from the fair-trade shelves at American Outfitters, and thus the split.

      In fact, I vote we call this Sweatergate.

      1. A libertarian showed up wearing a fur coat that she made herself, from the skins of the foxes she personally hunted.

        1. How long did it take you to hunt them, Hazel?

          1. My ambition is not to hunt foxes. My ambition to to make a hat that looks like I killed Cookie Monster and turned him into a hat.

            1. I cannot imagine a better response to my question, Hazel. Bravo.

    3. I suspect it’s the anti-corporatist vein of the Occupy movement.

      Plus, half the time, it’s just an excuse to fuck-off, which does seem to appeal to the Free Staters.

      1. Or to debate economics with people who are seeking answers. A chance to share what we believe with people who are confused. Libertarians need to engage with other people to change minds. Sitting at home being a keyboard warrior isn’t going to cut it.

    4. Yes, I’m in favor of the Stupefiers purging the libertarians. Let not their taint taint us who desire to remain untainted.

    5. Libertarians are attempting to reach out to Occupiers to try to find common ground, to educate them on economics, and to attempt to find solutions acceptable to all. There certainly is an undercurrent of socialism in the occupy movement, but rather than hide under your covers, doesn’t it make more sense to just go out and talk to the people who are basically scared and confused by our economic woes, rather than write them off as not “pure” enough to be associated with?

    6. Occupy started out as a part of the End the Fed/anti bail out movement and the Dems moved in to take it over just like they did with the anti war movement. Kind of like the GOP took over the Tea party movement.

    7. I’ve had some discussions with Pitt. She’s really not worth the time. She’s a leftist ansoc. And I don’t know why any of the Free Staters would want to associate.

  7. If the people associated with the (Free State Project) want to move here, fine,” wrote Occupy member Julia Riber Pitt of Salem in a Facebook post last week. “But when they do things that upset the rest of NH’s 1.3 million people, they deserve to be called out and shunned.”

    Ok Libertarians. We are not kidding around anymore. Consider yourselves othered.

    1. Othering people is a progressive’s primary debate weapon. It also has the convenient effect of making sure neigher he nor anyone in his community is never exposed to contradictory ideas. You have to protect your community from the poisonous influence of those forieng concepts.

      1. s/never/ever

      2. If you have ever seen a liberal melt down like an angry four year old after being confronted with a rationally presented argument from the other side, you would understand their concerns.

      3. It also has the convenient effect of making sure neigher he nor anyone in his community


  8. Ha Ha Ha. Speaking of Occupy: In my wee little town they decided to Occupy the sole ATM in town since we have no banks. That very much contributed to my decision to move in the very near future.

    1. That’s awesome. I’d love a picture of that. Although my mental picture’s probably funny enough.


    2. What you would likely get a picture of is me kicking the head of anyone who tried to stop me, as I push my way to the ATM.

    3. Holy shit. Standing around an ATM to protest banks. You sure they were not a theater troupe satirizing OWS behavior?

    4. call me silly, but when I read ” occupy the ATM” I pictured 5 rednex standing around the only atm in town,@ the local feedstore/post office/barber shop/city hall, holding anti capitalism signs…..while the only police officer….the town drunk/retired WW2 navy commander prepares to disperse the “crowd of miscreants”…not with a fire hose, but with a duct tape covered 35 ft garden hose……his right thumb over the end to create “blast”pressure……….”occupy Mayberry-2012″……………

  9. That’s a pretty high concentration of teh stoopid in one place.


  10. Liberals are so tolerant and inclusive.

  11. This has to be the most important schism since alt.literature.fantasy.thehobbit forced out the guys that started alt.literature.fantasy.thetruehobbit over the entire Gloin fiasco.

    1. Wow. That is some deep nerd there.

      1. You have to appreciate a good nerd joke. Just not a Tolkien one.

    2. What John said. WOW!

      *slow clap*

  12. Progressive’s are not tolerant of Libertarians? Who could have imagined such a thing? Is the author really retarded enough to report this as ‘news’? The 19th century divide was between classic liberalism (libertarianism) and progressivism (socialism).

    The progressive so fucked up their name brand by the 1920’s that they adopted their oppositions. Progressives (left wing statists) have never allowed anything like theft stand in their way. You know how it is, making omelets and all.

    1. Brought to you by the one and only history course at Glenn Beck U.

      1. typical Tony. When faced with malicious truths that you cannot refute on substance, go the personal route and attack someone whom no one here is defending and who isn’t even part of the story.

        1. The straw man looms!

            1. Glenn Beck is an idiot, Tony. Pick a better target, like Limbaugh.

        2. You don’t think there were other, perhaps more stark, political divides in the 19th century? Particularly the first half of it?

          1. Tony, calling you an asshole is an insult to the assholes. That there were other political divides is fucking irrelevant in light of the article, and the comment in response to the article. Take your red herring and place in a wet and anatomically sensitive spot.

            1. Tony believes if anyone insults or argues against him, it’s because he’s gay. Calling him an asshole is homophobic, jacob.

              1. Nope, I would hate or insult him – gay or not. But thanks for cuing me in.

                1. Yeah, but *because* he’s gay, means he can not be insulted, lest any of said insults offend him solely based on his gayness.

                  I know, it’s utter bullshit. But that’s how he sees it.

              2. Tony believes if anyone insults or argues against him, it’s because he’s gay.

                I am calling bullshit. Tony is a dishonest debater but I have never seen him pull the gaybasher card. EVER! (although i have seen him pull the race card once or twice…even though he is probably white)

                Without evidence please withdraw your lie.

          2. Why stop at the first half of the 19th century? I’m pretty sure there was a stark political divide between the Romans who wanted Octavian to be Emperor and those still loyal to Antony or Brutus.

            1. Why do you people read T o n y?

              1. It amuses us. And, hopefully, one day we will drive him from our village.

          3. Political tags ? such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth ? are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.-RAH

    2. Tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance.

  13. SPLITTERS!!!!


    1. People called libertarians they go the house?

        1. You quote a movie and you haven’t seen it?

          1. I’ve seen Brian a few times and don’t recognize the line.

  14. One thing I’ve discovered over years as a libertarian/anarchist dealing with liberals is that liberals classify everyone who doesn’t agree nearly 100% with their agenda as the opposition, and since everyone who opposes them is a conservative, libertarians must be conservative. They don’t recognize any political classification other than “progressive” and “conservative”: you must be one or the other, you’re with us or you’re with the conservatives, a vote for anyone other than Obama is a vote for Romney, not voting is a vote for Romney, etc.

    1. There are no individuals in identity politics.

      Either you identify completely with this group or you are attacked for agreeing completely with the other group.

      1. I honestly see less of this problem on the right: I know a lot of conservatives who can distinguish between libertarians and liberals. Not sure why.

        1. because conservatism includes splits along economic or social lines. Liberalism is an all-in ideology.

          1. Conservatism requires some thought, and where there is thought there is debate.

            Liberalism is 100% emotion. There is no thinking involved. You either feel the same way or there is something wrong with you.

            1. Unfortunately there are plenty of conservatives who are unthinking. Take the drug war. Knee-jerk emotional reaction if there ever was one.

              1. “Unfortunately there are plenty of conservatives who are unthinking. Take the drug war. Knee-jerk emotional reaction if there ever was one.”
                Like Jerry Falwell?

            2. For many liberals liberalism *is* their religion, while conservatives often have political views *and* a religion. Although, often, with conservatives, their religion will determine a couple of political positions which they will entirely fence off from reason, so in that subset of their political positions there is not all that much difference.

              But with many liberals, the liberalism is *it*, it’s what they are going to believe independent of any evidence, and what they think they believe because of the preponderance of the evidence (partly because that is part of the doctrine).

              Having said that, people are people, and in pretty much any group you’re going to have unthinking ideologues, even libertarianism.

              1. For many liberals liberalism *is* their religion

                We are Government and Government is God, therefore We are God.

          2. I have to take issue with this. I know many more nuanced liberals than I do nuanced conservatives. But perhaps that’s because of my circle of friends.
            I don’t think one or the other is inherently any more “thoughtful” or open to debate than the other.
            Also, I’m still fighting the battle for the word “liberal.” I think we should give ’em “progressive,” since they seem so eager to embrace it.

            1. The term liberal has become, unfortunately, welded to the most retarded wing of TEAM BLUE. That really does take some doing when you think about it.

              1. wow jacob can really bring the radio fat when it wants to !

                1. Ah triple asshole, how are you?!

            2. “Progressive”

              adj: someone who like progressing towards a totalitarian state with minimal freedom.

              1. Progressive[ly more socialist]

        2. Well, that’s because American conservatism is, in many ways, libertarianism’s retarded cousin. Most basic principles of government that conservatives claim to espouse is pretty much in line with libertarian (or at least minarchist) philosophy. Too many conservatives just lose track of those principles when the opportunity comes up to “kick somebody’s ass” or “’cause that the way we’ve always done it”.

          1. Or because Israel Must At All Costs Be Considered An Extension Of America.

            I think this is why Tea Party types dithered around on the flavor of the month, completely squandering their potential, instead of getting behind Paul in the primaries.

            1. But, doesn’t that probably fit under the ruberic of kicking somebody’s ass?

        3. There are a lot of liberals who can, too. It’s the rank and file who have a hard time.

          And I seem to recall a lot of conservatives in 2008 wondering why Ron Paul wasn’t a Democrat if he was against the Iraq War.

    2. I’ve had the same experience with conservatives too. The moment you mention anything that is socially liberal, I’ve had people go all tradition, society, kids and jesus on me.

      It doesn’t matter that Romney did the same healthcare law. He is just better because he is wearing a red shirt unlike that Obummer asshole in his blue shirt.

      There is very little hope for liberty in this country.

      1. It doesn’t matter that Romney did the same healthcare law. He is just better because he is wearing a red shirt unlike that Obummer asshole in his blue shirt.
        Yeah, this is definitely true. It’s amazing how fast the blinders went on once Romney clinched the nomination. My father is a prototypical Republican in this respect: it’s frustrating trying to have an argument with people who have selective amnesia.

        1. To be fair, sometimes you have to steel yourself to do something you know you don’t really want to do. Like voting for MR to get rid of the utter disaster that is BO.

          1. Right. Vote for the turd sandwich because it smells better than the douche bag.

    3. a vote for anyone other than Obama Romney is a vote for Romney Obama, not voting is a vote for Obama, etc.

      They aren’t the only ones. Prepare to see ^this^ a lot in the coming months.

      1. “This is most important elections of our lifetimes, so vote [giant shit] OR [douche sandwich]!”

        1. My brother, who is libertarian-ish, told me he was going to vote for Romney. I was surprised, since he’s voted L for the last 5 elections. To him, Obama is just too much shit sandwich.

          1. People are picking sides. The last non-L/write-in vote I cast was for Rand Paul. Romney has failed to impress (big surprise.)

            I was planning on writing in Batman, but after the shooting incident, I feel that might be too incendiary of a choice.

            1. I hear they are doing a Super Man reboot next year. I think in these times, Super Man is really the only write in choice.

              1. Except Superman is an undocumented alien, ineligible to be President.

    4. I constantly get called a Republican on some sites, by progressive fucktards, just because of this. And it is impossible to explain the difference to them. If you are against more taxes and bigger government, you are a Republican, period. The few progressives who do recognize the difference, show much more hatred towards Libertarians than they do for conservatives. They think we want all of the children to die from hunger and lack of medical insurance.

      1. Well, if they’re going to die they’d better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

  15. I was collecting signatures recently in my state to get Gary Johnson on the ballot. I encountered a number of liberal fucktards who just balked when I told them what party GJ belonged to. I challenged a couple of liberal fucktards by telling them President Obama bombed a 16-year old kid – a US citizen – in Yemen. Their response? “la la la la la”. Fucking assholes.

    1. Dad? What are you doing here?

    2. It’s hard to believe somebody with a screen name like that could have a hard time getting the word out to people who aren’t already libertarians.

      Don’t worry. The rest of us will undo the damage.


      1. We should purge him.

      2. Are you offended that I did not come inside of you?

      3. If you want, I can help insert some sense of humor into you – literally.

      4. Dude, Ken, pull the stick out of your butt. Just because someone makes a joke handle on a website comment section doesn’t mean they aren’t able to make convincing arguments and actually get the word out to people.

        1. Some people have a hard time telling the difference between the enemy and the battlefield.

          When you run into people who have a low opinion of libertarians? They’re the generally the battlefield.

          Our enemies are the scumbag politicians in Washington, who seem to be obsessed with watering our rights down into nothing. …and one of the strategies they use to accomplish that is by denigrating libertarian ideas to their constituents (the battleground).

          So, when you meet constituents who have a low opinion of libertarians? You can reconfirm their preexisting bias! It’s a free country.

          Or you can choose to not confirm their preexisting bias against us–the rest of us libertarians will eventually make up for your mistakes anyway.

          There shouldn’t be anything controversial about that. Or anything controversial about noticing that someone who calls himself something so obnoxious turns around and treats the hearts and minds we’re trying to win like “fucking assholes”–and makes sure to tell them he’s a libertarian?

          If he’s gonna go around treating the battleground that way, why no tell them he’s a Baptist or a Socialist instead?

          ’cause nothing changes people’s minds like treating them with contempt in person? I don’t think so.

          1. Normally the words “prudish” and “prick” don’t go in the same sentence. But you Mr. Ken Shultz are a wonder. May I suggest “Prudish Prick” as your login name?

      5. CUNT! ASS! FUCK! SHIT!

        1. Wow, really? That didn’t get flagged as spam by the squirrels? I actually kind of expected that not to go through.

          Oh well, someone had to say it.

          1. Possibly it was deemed intelligent by comparison…

      6. Just wow. What world do you live in that ‘Ken Shultz’ is less repulsive than ‘I Came Inside Your Mom’? When people see Ken Shultz, they see Auschwitz and rows of tanks destroying entire towns, and even more nasty things like beer purity laws, but when people see ‘I came inside your mom’ they are relieved that someone out there is taking the time and effort to make their mothers happy. If anything, it is your mess that we have to clean up since you wont do the decent thing like change your name or use a nick.

    3. Yeah I had a progressive tell me that the reason the anti-war types were giving Obama a pass was because he was responsibly winding down the wars. I asked, “so assassinating American citizens without due process is what passes for responsible these days eh?” He had no idea what I was talking about and my point was proven.

      1. I told one of the so-called liberals I ran into collecting signatures that Obama would give the best legal justification and precedence to the next totalitarian GWB. His response? “This conversation is over”.

      2. I run into this all the fucking time too and it drives me fucking batty. It usually involves people whose main sources of information are still screaming their lungs out about Bush et al. in mid-2012.

        On a related note, people who are aware of the due-process-free assassinations but go “buh buh buh buuuuuuuuut Bush!” to handwave it away are even worse.

  16. The Purge

    “Man alive, Goodchile… you give me the hinks.”

    1. Aeon Flux?!? What is this, 1991?!?

      1. Would that it were. I’d buy a lot of Apple stock and keep Beiber from being born.

        1. I would go to Vegas and bet on the Braves and Twins making the world series. then buy some apple stock.

          1. I would find Deborah Ann Woll before she made it big, devastate her self-esteem, and keep her all for myself.

            1. But she would have been 16 in 1991. She was still jail bait.

            2. No she would have been six man. You would end up being locked up.

              1. Damn. I suppose it turns out there may have been some details I didn’t consider in my plan to time-travel for love.

          2. Cisco stock. Just prepare to sell it in a few years.

        2. apple stock? hell……….I woulda went all in on Haliburton and remington arms……

  17. OT:
    Ron Paul ?@RepRonPaul
    The House of Representatives will vote on my Audit the Fed bill this afternoon sometime around 1-2 PM EST!

  18. Ugh, I hate the Free Keene movement. They give Libertarians a bad name. They literally go around harassing old ladies because they are crossing guards and therefore represent state oppression.

    1. This is why nobody takes libertarians seriously!

      1. why is it all the other teams get to have retards in their ranks and people ‘take them seriously’?

        1. ‘Cause they blend in so well?

          1. + so much that generals don’t laugh at you because the number could be an accounting mistake at the Pentagon.

  19. Sorry but its gonna take a lOT more than some silly protest to get any real results!

  20. The progressives did this — savor the irony here — by attempting to turn the Occupation into a corporation… To be a part of Provost’s version of Occupy New Hampshire, you must sign a “solidarity statement” that requires, among other things, that you support a tax hike and oppose Citizens United.

    The stupid… It burns. They’ve gone beyond full retard.

    Perhaps they really don’t want their free speech rights either. You couldn’t make this shit up.

    1. Wait, they’re incorporating, and also demanding that people revoke that corporation’s speech rights? DERP.

  21. Yes, Libertarians, this is what you get for attempting to be friends with progressives.

    Let that be a lesson learned.

    1. Well, you’ll notice, only a small leftist splinter group broke off from Occupy NH. Some of the ones who stayed are Free Staters, most are not. Many other people stayed with the group. I think it shows that the Free Staters have made a difference in educating people about the real cause of our economic woes, and the lefties were unable to bring people over to their side. That’s the goal, to educate people who are confused. Face it, lots of people just don’t know much about economics, and they’re not gonna get the truth at public school or from the media or from the lefties. We need to go out there and educate people, and that’s what the Free Staters are doing, NOT “making friends with progressives”

  22. Whatdayaknow? I guess corporations are people.

    1. Soylent Green is corporations!

    2. And apparently they’re assholes too.

  23. “To be a part of Provost’s version of Occupy New Hampshire, you must sign a “solidarity statement” that requires, among other things, that you support a tax hike and oppose Citizens United.”

    So, to join their corporation to advocate for change in the government, you have to agree that corporations have no right to advocate for change in government.

    Irony is truly the building block of existence.

  24. I still, in spite of incredibly not nice behavior from “the left”, consider myself a classical liberal. Frankly, I appreciate the honesty. Those on “the right” tend to butter us up with sweet words during elections, and when it’s over, throw us under the social-conservative bus.

    1. If you haven’t been paying attention, “the left” does the same damn thing.

      1. Yeah, during the Bush years the Leftists sometimes even spoke to us as if we are human beings. Once Obama The Great ascended to the throne we reverted to our non-human status.

        1. After they tasted the sweet, sweet fruit of one party rule for two years, they can’t even muster up the veneer of pretending to like us even if it helped them get back to there.

          1. “After they tasted the sweet, sweet fruit of one party rule for two years, they can’t even muster up the veneer of pretending to like us even if it helped them get back to there.” At this point, any attempts to differentiate between “progressives” and “conservatives” is likely to end in seppuku.

    2. Classical liberals and left liberals have as much in common as a power plant and a potted plant.

      1. “Classical liberals and left liberals have as much in common as a power plant and a potted plant.” Monotremes lay eggs. Dose that make them reptiles?

  25. The progressives did this — savor the irony here — by attempting to turn the Occupation into a corporation … you must sign a “solidarity statement” that requires, among other things, that you support a tax hike and oppose Citizens United.

    Wait until their heads explode when they realize this means they think they shouldn’t be allowed to spend money to influence the election.

    1. How would their heads explode?

      They’re leftists, which means they’re hypocrites through and through.

      It is perfectly acceptable for them to do that which causes them outrage when done by the other guy.

  26. Progressives Try to Purge Libertarians from Occupy New Hampshire

    1. Aha. The leftist echo-chamber is leftist echo-chambery; meanwhile, they gripe about other echo chambers.

    2. Why would libertarians show up at a leftist event in the first place? Have your own event, folks. Fuck those Occutards.

    1. The lefties are rounding up people who are angry about the economy, and telling them lies about the causes. The Free Staters showed up to present the real facts about economics and government interference. And the Lefties have thrown a tantrum and left the stage, leaving the confused people and the Free Staters as the only game in town. Ergo, we win. There are plenty of Free State events, but this one is about reaching out to people and spreading the message.

  27. Looks like the commies want to be a pure commie movement and keep out all of the crazies talking about liberty.

    I wonder what the founders would think if they could see this? They started this country by rebelling against taxes they thought to be unfair. And now there is a movement that seems to be mostly based around the idea of getting the government to tax us more. You can’t make up shit this retarded. Somewhere in our history, there was bad stuff in the water.

    At first I felt somewhat sympathetic for the OWS crowd. I thought they had the right ideas and just were directing them in the wrong direction(at Wall Street/Corporations, instead of at the federal government). Now I just think they are a group of retarded commie whiners.

    1. A lot of the Occupy people are just angry and confused. The lefties are trying to take over the movement they way the Rethuglicans took over the Tea Party Movement. The Free Staters are trying to explain the truth to the Occupy people, and the lefties got mad and split off.

  28. So, lessee here, we discover *gasp* that the Pro-Government Occupy movement is suspicious of those shifty small-government types. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

    1. It’s like they are screaming “Hey government, please screw us over some more, we haven’t had enough yet! Please take away more of our rights and steal the rest of what’s left of our wealth!”

      Fucking retards, for sure.

    2. To be a part of Provost’s version of Occupy New Hampshire, you must sign a “solidarity statement” that requires, among other things, that you support a tax hike and oppose Citizens United.

      Fuuuuuuuuck you, you statist fucks.

      1. Does the signature go on the inside cover of Mao’s Little Red Book, or on the inside cover of Dreams From My Father?

  29. The original inspiration for Occupy was a protest against bank bailouts and corporate welfare… the same inspiration that the TP had. So it’s not surprising that there would be libertarians in Occupy (at least at the beginning).

    Obviously, both movements have strayed from their original foundation, though the TP has remained somewhat consistent at least. I couldn’t tell you what policies Occupy favors at this point, it’s just an incoherent group of angry leftist people.

    1. I couldn’t tell you what policies Occupy favors at this point, it’s just an incoherent group of angry leftist people

      From when I cared to pay attention in the beginning, the Occupy movement supported a grandiose stimulus plan for regular folks (not sure what that was supposed to look like- they didn’t seem to give specifics beyond: give the 99% money and jobs!), they wanted student loan forgiveness and reform (emphasis on forgiveness), they wanted a more Democratic government in all aspects: yes, your property rights get voted on, they wanted restrictions on political speech spending, and they were often vocal about “not being anti-government or anti-police”, and several Occupy protesters were quick to make that distinction. And lastly they wanted to jack taxes way up on the 18%.

  30. Who the fuck gives a shit about Occupy “X” anymore. They’re irrelevant.

  31. Here’s footage from a recent Occupy New Hampshire General Assembly:

    1. hehehe, Yes, we were linking to that one, ourselves.

      In actuallity, try this one for size:

  32. So… Occupy New Hampshire is a corporation now.

    The very thing Occupy claims to despise.

    Very telling.

    I wonder if they’ll want Citizens United-style protections now?

  33. So I’m mentioned in the article.
    Yes, I’m an elected State Representative. Republican. Free Stater. Libertarian (former vice chair of NHLP). Tea Partier. Ron Paul endorser. Occupier. No conflict. Really. I see the connections, and I’m trying to build bridges between people who are ALL angry at the system, want to fix it, and merely disagree on HOW to fix it. Which takes dialogue and work together. We have lost political discourse in this country. I am working to bring it back.

    I linked above to a video.. Watch it.

    And BTW, the article didn’t focus enough on the folks who DIDN’T leave. The inclusive ONH people who are working hand in hand with libertarians, and finding common ground, are a good group of people, from all walks… the media perception of Occupy is no more accurate than the media perception of libertarians.

    1. And Occupy NH is a different animal than Occupy movements in other places as well.

  34. Occupy is a mental disorder. Run while you still can.

  35. The Occupy movement is not the slightest bit libertarian, and it appalls me that FSP would ever have associated itself with those violators of property rights and the right to go about our daily business unimpeded.

    The only good thing to be said for any part of the Occupy movement is that it waves a target bigger than us in the faces of the badge-wearing thugs, and may wind up creating precedents that start to roll back their powers to use arbitrary force with impunity (though I doubt it).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.