It is not enough to merely demand independence. Independence has consequences for the citizens of this State. We are well aware of these consequences, and thus we are pleased to present our vision of what New Hampshire would look like sans the federal government.

Free trade with all
High tariffs don't help anyone. Even if another country imposes tariffs on us, it's still a bad idea to disallow individuals from buying from those countries. By denying access to cheaper and better quality goods from outside our country, we only shoot ourselves in the foot and exacerbate the problems caused by managed trade. The violence of tariffs (especially protectionist tariffs) does nothing to aid in building wealth. It only serves as a barrier to upward mobility for poor and middle class citizens.

Liberals should also support completely unilateral free trade. The people of New Hampshire (and especially the poor and working classes) would be much wealthier without high taxes and tariffs on goods from abroad. For example, federal government tariffs and subsidies make many food items far more expensive in the United States than they are on the world markets. According to Catherine Crier in her book The Case Against Lawyers, peanuts in the US are twice as expensive as they are on the world market. Sugar is priced at 2-4 times its world market value and milk and corn are far more expensive in the US than in the rest of the world. Quotas on Australian beef increase the price Americans pay by 400%. Similar effects can be observed with cotton, silk, polyester and many other commodities. Most foreign cars are levied with tariffs of 100% or higher. This only serves to protect domestic industries from competition, creating a de facto cartel, making industry stagnate, while depriving poor hard-working Granite Staters of choice. It also deprives them of more of their hard earned money when it comes to paying for basic necessities. Without tariffs and quotas, most goods would be priced far less, saving New Hampshire citizens sizable amounts of money on every trip to the market.

According to James Bovard's The Bush Betrayal, Bush's high steel tariffs destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs in industries dependent on steel for their manufacturing. At the same time, it did nothing to help steel workers. Politically connected steel companies, however, made a windfall.

An independent New Hampshire would have free trade with the entire world. We have an Atlantic port and a border with Canada. New Hampshire would still have unilateral free trade with the US as well. New Hampshire airports would be free of customs officials searching bags for "contraband." An independent New Hampshire engaging in free trade with the entire world would be a highly prosperous republic. It would rival Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan in terms of wealth creation for all people, rich and poor alike. In the end, it really doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor. No one likes seeing his money wasted by senseless government regulation. Using government violence to forbid peaceful people from voluntarily trading with whomever they want is immoral. Interfering in voluntary exchange is wrong, regardless of whether that exchange is abroad or domestic.

No more federal income tax: keep all of the money you earn
Conservatives for years have been opposed to the income tax. After all, the income tax has been a method used by the federal government to take money from individuals and then use it to browbeat states into submission by forcing states to comply with its mandates and regulations in order to receive subsidies. The citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to keep their own money in the first place. Bureaucrats in the federal government routinely skim 70% off the top before the money reaches its intended destination. (The Wall Street Journal reported in 1995 that the federal government loses about 70% of total income receipts in bureaucratic costs. "Wonderful Welfare," Wall Street Journal, 3/24/95) Many of the federal projects are counterproductive to freedom and prosperity. The income tax has largely nullified the decentralized republican form of government envisioned by our forefathers by making state governments lapdogs of the federal government. No more! We should take a stand and declare our rightful independence and reclaim our heritage of freedom. (See The Income Tax: Root of all Evil by Frank Chodorov)

The income tax is also evil in that it turns everyone into a slave of the government. If the government is taxing 5% of your labor, then it owns that 5% of you and essentially makes you a slave. The income tax, however, claims far more than 5% of your wealth. Federal taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes, sap about 30% of the wealth from the average working American, and compliance imposes costs on businesses as well. Slavery is immoral and wrong. Even slaves many times got money that they could save to purchase their own freedom. But as political slaves, we don't even have that option. We wouldn't need government welfare if people were able to keep all of their own money in the first place. The poor would have a higher standard of living, and the wealthy would have more money to invest in innovation and job creation.

Liberals should also support being free of the income tax. Considering that the federal government has become an empire abroad and a police state at home, with all its domestic spying activities and wars, why would any modern anti-war liberal want to help fund the federal government? Giving money to an evil government is immoral. A government that insists on spying illegally, unjustly imprisoning its own citizens, and engaging in senseless, unjust wars abroad is evil.

Just say no to the Welfare-Warfare State. New Hampshire can peacefully secede without funding the beast, and we'd all be better off for it.

No more IRS
One of the benefits of being free from the federal income tax is being free of the IRS. There is nothing scarier than being audited by the IRS. Keeping meticulous records for such an eventuality imposes costs on individuals and businesses alike. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent in New Hampshire each year on tax preparation, accountants, and tax attorneys. It's time to be free of the IRS, and permit all people to pursue careers in worthwhile wealth-building activities.

Those who do not pay taxes for reasons of conscience will no longer face the strong-armed intimidation tactics of the IRS and the Department of Justice. This is an integral part of dismantling the federal police state.

No More PATRIOT Act
The PATRIOT Act is the worst piece of legislation crafted since John Adams' "Alien and Sedition Acts." It violates the right of free speech, makes it legal to imprison people without a trial, and tramples on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments. Enforcement of the PATRIOT Act also tramples on the 9th and 10th amendments, which guarantee state sovereignty. When New Hampshire secedes from the federal government, we will no longer be required to deal with these abuses. We can arrest federal agents who try to abduct people living in New Hampshire, and be free of this tyranny.

Conservatives should also look forward to being free of the PATRIOT Act. Its regulations impose numerous regulatory compliance costs on insurance, banking, and other financial industries. Some of the other laws that have since been passed impose regulations even on pawn shops and libraries. The PATRIOT Act is antagonistic to the free market, destroys wealth, and in many ways impoverishes Americans.

No more Drug War
Most liberals will probably agree that the War on Drugs is a war on people. Before the PATRIOT Act, the drug war was the method most widely used bu the Federal government to trample on the rights of peaceful citizens.

The War on Drugs hasn't ended the nation's drug problem. It only drives drug dealing into the black market. In the black market, with no legitimate legal authority to solve disputes, conflicts often devolve into gang warfare. Organized crime may indeed sometimes resolve disputes between competing factions, but the cost of such a "service" is extraordinary. Often it is innocent civilians who pay the highest cost, facing injury or death in the line of fire.

Dealing drugs is so lucrative, even worth killing for in the estimation of some, because it is illegal. If one snitch reports another dealer to the cops, he has effectively neutralized his competition and raised his profit margin. In spite of government attempts to eliminate drugs, they keep getting cheaper and the quality keeps improving. Government is incapable of eliminating trade in a product for which there is a natural market. The lucrative nature of the business is an attractive draw, not only for organized crime, but can be enticing even to our police corps. This threat endangers the integrity which is needed by those who wield force in our society.

Conservatives who believe in government staying within the limits of the Constitution should also support ending the Drug War. Nowhere in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution is Congress empowered to make drugs illegal.

The morality of the situation is that freedom implies the right to fail. It implies the right to make wrong choices. If people choose to put drugs into their bodies, that's their business. It's not the state's business. It's not any government's business. It's a decision between that person and his family. If a person under the influence of drugs commits a crime and violates someone else's person or property, that violation is the crime. Whether the perpetrator has drugs in his system is irrelevant. Drug users need to be held responsible for their actions just like everyone else. Seceding and removing New Hampshire from the War On Drugs will encourage conservative principles like personal responsibility to reign again in New Hampshire.

No more EPA
The EPA hasn't done anything to cut down on pollution or save animals that wasn't already being done by the marketplace. For instance, water pollution and air pollution were both in decline a good decade before the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, respectively, were passed. In fact, in many ways the EPA has made things worse. By mandating rigid requirements and regulations, it discourages businesses from designing more efficient, less-polluting systems. Because the compliance cost of regulation is so large, businesses that are already grandfathered in tend to pollute more than they otherwise would without the EPA. When companies do implement EPA standards, there are often products on the market that would do a better job of pollution and emission control, but businesses almost always choose EPA-approved versions and models because doing so limits liability. The EPA has done nothing but impart huge regulatory costs to businesses. Businesses depend upon their communities for their very survival. They have no incentive to pollute their own environment. Since reducing pollution would serve their own interests, the solutions developed by independent businesses would be cheaper and much more efficient than the stagnant EPA bureaucratic standards.

Economists understand that the wealthier a society is, the more wealth it has to distribute for non-wealth-creating entities like the environment. Protecting the environment is important and people naturally care about the cleanliness of their surroundings; thus experience has shown that, once the basic needs of life are met, people and businesses will naturally care for the environment, using the most efficient methods possible. The environment is best served by allowing poor and rich alike to become wealthier through voluntary free market exchange and innovation. Impoverishing the people by extracting their wealth will make them less likely to care about the environment and become more concerned with more immediate needs, as can be attested to by a visit to any third world country.

Understandably, liberals want to protect the environment, as do we all. Protecting the environment is really too important to trust to government. The federal government is, after all, the biggest polluter and violator of EPA standards. Even the EPA violates its own standards.

Consider the case of the kangaroo rat. In order to protect this animal, the EPA was willing to evict a hardworking farmer from his farm. We do not believe that it is moral to destroy an individual's livelihood in the name of protecting species. Yet that is what has become of America, as the ever-expanding police state intwines itself into almost every facet of our lives.

In fact the Endangered Species Act, instead of protecting species, actually harms them. In a free market, if a rare bird or animal starts visiting your property, it would be worthwhile to foster the habitat and attempt to attract more members of the species. One's property could be converted into a private park and even make money by displaying these rare animals. But under current regulations, a rare animal becomes a threat, as the homeowner risks his property being condemned and devalued by the EPA. In this situation, the average person is far more likely to destroy the animal (and all evidence thereof) rather than to risk loss of his property.

These represent the unintended consequences of government laws and regulations. Normally they end up doing the exact opposite of what they're intended to do. A New Hampshire that is free of the EPA would be free to allow a citizen to protect wildlife on his property. It would recognize that protecting the economic rights of all citizens is instrumental in defending the environment.

The system of common law used to provide adequate protection for the environment, as it permitted individuals to seek legal redress against corporations if those corporations harmed the integrity of the surrounding community. It was only when the government began to give the "common good" preference over individual rights that we lost all recourse to the courts. Our common law heritage was usurped by government bureaucracy, beginning during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt. Following independence, we would be free to return to the common law.

No OSHA or other federal regulatory agencies
Just as the EPA does nothing to improve the environment, OSHA does nothing to ensure worker safety. All it does is impose draconian regulations on businesses large and small. Complying with these regulations is extremely costly, and results in fewer resources being available to improve the working conditions of workers. In fact, complying with all these OSHA regulations, coupled with unemployment insurance, funding the employer's share of social security and workman's compensation regulations typically costs employers between $5.80 and $8.73 an hour per employee. If it wasn't for these regulations, most workers could potentially make between $5 and $8 more per hour than they're currently making. Eliminating these regulations would allow employees more freedom of choice, as they could opt to save money to cover potential medical problems, or choose safer jobs that pay a little less money. Employers compete with more than just money. Workers would be able to be more selective in choosing an employer, especially since they wouldn't be forced to pay burdensome income taxes.

As businesses are freed from the enormous costs of complying with senseless regulations, Granite Staters would make more money. Without the burden of federal income taxes, New Hampshire's citizens would be able to keep a lot more of their money. That money would have greater purchasing power as a result of unilateral free trade.

Deregulation should appeal to both liberals and conservatives. Liberals, for instance, should appreciate the greater freedom that would result because of deregulation. Regulations are often developed by big businesses looking to stifle competition, in much the same way as politically connected businesses and industries lobby for high tariffs. Big businesses are able to absorb the costs of regulation, while smaller companies and businesses have trouble sifting through the murky waters of alphabet soup agencies. This is why big business is often the strongest advocate of high taxes and heavy regulation: Far from being hurt by excessive taxation and regulation, big business benefits from the stifling effects regulation forces on their smaller competition. By eliminating these burdensome taxes and regulations, small businesses would be able to compete in a truly free market. Bigger businesses would have to compete in that same marketplace without being advantaged by political plunder.

No more federal mandates
Since conservatives traditionally believe in smaller, decentralized government, they naturally tend to support this plank. However, many liberals should also support it. The federal government attempts to foist its corporate-supported agenda on us by the use of stifling mandates and outright bribery. This agenda is not "conservative," in the sense that it does not limit government, and it is not "liberal" in the sense that it does not result in greater freedom. It is, rather, the antithesis of everything that true liberals and true conservatives stand for. We say it's time for New Hampshire to decide for itself what its own policies should be.

No more Real ID
Obviously we're still fighting Real ID in New Hampshire. However, the federal government sees this legislation as a centerpiece in its misguided attempt to fight terrorism via domestic surveillance. It is therefore likely that, at some point, New Hampshire will be unable to functionally exist within the Union without accepting the national identification. Independence is the natural solution to this problem. It is dangerous to allow our personal history, identification, and biometric identifiers to be stored in a central government database. Neither conservatives nor liberals are pleased at the idea of such a database, but the federal government intends on foisting it upon us, contrary to our consent.

No passports required to travel to Canada
This speaks for itself.

New Hampshire not a target of terrorists
Al-Qaeda and similar terrorist groups hate the United States. The reason for this is a subject of an intense misinformation campaign on behalf of the Presidential administration. Neo-conservatives like to claim that we are hated because of our prosperity. Frankly, we don't believe that makes sense. If the terrorists hated us for our prosperity and freedom, they would have attacked something that represented that. Instead they attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, symbols of global business and the military. If the terrorists hated us for our freedom, they would have attacked a symbol of liberty, perhaps the Statue of Liberty.

If New Hampshire declared its independence from the US, the terrorists would know that we no longer support the federal government's foreign policy. New Hampshire would not be a likely target of terrorism, since we would no longer be part of the federal government. Our policy of free trade would act as an additional protection, by ensuring that other nations have a financial stake in our security. Our position is that it is unwise to compromise neutrality. We believe that the surest way to avoid conflict with other nations is to trade peacefully with them. As the saying goes, "When goods don't cross borders, armies will." The corollary is also true: If goods do cross borders, armies typically don't. We do not wish to impose sanctions against Iran, and have no desire to sacrifice our sons and daughters in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The United States has engaged in a reckless policy of empire-building. New Hampshire wants no part of this. We consider empire-building to be provocative, and such activities subject American citizens to retaliation.

War increases the size and power of government more than anything else. Those who believe in limited government, decentralized power, and natural liberty should support independence. By removing our consent, the federal government loses some measure of its ability to consolidate its power and vanquish pretended enemies.

No more threat of conscription
Conscription is merely another name for slavery. It has no place in a free country. Unfortunately, politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington are mentioning conscription as a possible means of raising declining troop levels. If our sons no longer wish to join the armed forces, perhaps it is because they don't view world hegemony as a cause worth dying for. Rather than respecting the will of the people, the solution proffered by the politicians in Washington is to enslave us, to bind us with chains and force us to pay the ultimate price for their insatiable lust for land and oil. It's time we leave the Union before it's too late.

No more FEMA controlling citizens in times of "crisis"
If we have learned nothing else from the Hurricane Katrina debacle, it's that the federal government is both completely incompetent and corrupt when it comes to "helping" during disaster recovery. FEMA openly made things worse, while refusing help from private organizations and businesses. Then the military confiscated firearms, worsening the straits of the people by removing their only defense against those who would use the disaster as an opportunity to steal their hard-earned possessions.

Opposition to FEMA should likewise be a bi-partisan effort. FEMA is a violation of the conservative principles of individualism. Its militant nature should be shocking to liberals. In fact, all regulatory agencies rely on militant enforcement of their decrees. That's what the federal government is, after all. Independence frees us from FEMA's intrusion, permitting us to solve our own problems in our own way. The free market system that already exists in New Hampshire, when completely freed from irksome federal regulation, would provide a strong and flexible support system in times of crisis. As was demonstrated during Katrina, private organizations are more compassionate, efficient, and competent than their government counterparts when it comes time to assist during a disaster.

No more TSA
To their credit, liberals have taken the lead in opposing the monstrous oppression that is the Transportation Security Administration. Too many conservatives have been duped into thinking that we can prevent terrorism by harassing peaceful citizens. In fact, TSA merely expands the size and reach of government. It also hampers the airline markets and prevents airports and airlines from competition in improving their airline security. The events of 9/11 proved that government is inherently incompetent and unable to protect us. The job of airline security should fall to those who are most responsible: the owners of the aircraft. They are the only ones with sufficient financial risk to know best how to protect their property, and consumers are the only ones who know what level of risk they personally are willing to accept. As it stands now, the federal government has co-opted the responsibility of the airlines, enforced uniformity, and thereby also limited the recourse that the consumer has to seek compensation for losses. As usual, when big business and the government collaborate, the winners are the business and the government, and the loser is the consumer.

The solution is not government involvement in airline security. The solution is to allow each individual airline, and each individual airport to choose its own security policies. If airlines had been allowed to have their own private security measures rather than being forced to follow the federal mandates, it's possible 9/11 would never have happened! The airlines have suffered from one of the most intrusive invasions of government into private industry, and since 9/11 that burden has been increased. It it our contention that government control is one of the reasons the terrorists succeeded on 9/11. It may well be that there were other contributing factors. Some suggest that the government knew we would be attacked and did nothing. Some suggest that our foreign policy made us a target. Some have suggested that if passengers or pilots were able to carry firearms, the disaster could have been prevented. These arguments may all be true, or they may not. The point is that government claimed a monopoly on protecting us on 9/11 and failed in its task. We cannot trust our security to the federal government; it has a long history of failure and incompetence to recommend it. It not only failed to protect us, but actively prevented those with a natural self-interest from protecting themselves. We can imagine no greater indictment.

Easier to be an entrepreneur
This is an important, yet often overlooked, benefit of independence. Without all the federal taxes, trade restrictions, and regulations, it will be much easier to make a living. More importantly, it will be much easier to innovate and build businesses. Sole proprietorships, partnerships, and small businesses, as well as big businesses, will find it much easier to develop goods and services, improve quality, and cut costs for customers.

No more UN
Unlike many independence movements, we do not believe that appealing to the United Nations is to our advantage. To the contrary, we believe that as long as New Hampshire remains a part of the Union, it should demand that the US withdraw from the UN. The UN represents an organization determined to implement global government. It has already made several attempts at implementing world-wide taxation. It already has a world court. It often dispatches armies for "peacekeeping" missions; typically those missions are every bit as violent and counterproductive as is the current US invasion of Iraq. UN soldiers are just as likely to rape and pillage as are US solders. While we rightfully condemn the atrocities committed by the US military, we have no more faith in the UN. Its General Court is even less accountable than is our Congress, and it has proven itself unable to manage its affairs fairly and equitably. It would be a shame to gain freedom by declaring independence from the federal government, only to lose that freedom by subjugating ourselves to a world governing body. We believe that decisions for New Hampshire should be made by New Hampshire, not by the Hague.

No standing army
For many persons, this seems counterintuitive, but the fact is that we don't need a military. The founders envisioned a country with no military, and it was for this reason that they enshrined the second amendment. Private citizens exercising their right to bear arms and defend their own private property are more than sufficient to maintain a defense against aggression by other nations.

Consider that in over two hundred years, there has not been a single war on American soil that resulted from an unprovoked attack by another nation. On the contrary, nearly every war in our history has been a result of American military provocation. Militaries are a great threat to freedom, as the founders well understood. If a military were capable of defending our freedoms, they would not have been so significantly eroded in the last few decades. Militaries exist for the benefit of governments, not for the benefit of individuals. They certainly don't exist for liberty.

Since New Hampshire intends to pursue a policy of free trade with the rest of the world, there would be no incentive for another nation to attack us. Individuals and nations will find that they will benefit far more from trade with us than from war with us. Violence and war are inherently wasteful and expensive. It's far cheaper to peacefully trade than it is to deploy armies.

Furthermore, by a policy of complete neutrality in the arena of foreign affairs, we will naturally be much less of a target. Certainly we do not intend to revoke the right of individuals in New Hampshire to hold whatever political allegiances they wish. But the State of New Hampshire itself should remain completely neutral in foreign affairs: Free trade with all, but entangling alliances with none. We will find ourselves in a similar situation to Switzerland. There will be very little reason for anyone, government or otherwise, to attack us.

Better currency
We believe that legal tender laws are a detriment to sound monetary policy. All commodities achieve their highest quality when competition is allowed. Currency is no exception. We believe that the people should be able to use whatever currency, precious metal, or combination thereof, that they prefer. The federal government continues to inflate the monetary supply. We believe that, while individuals would likely continue to use the dollar immediately after independence, in time the poor management of the dollar would likely cause most citizens of New Hampshire to prefer other currencies.

Better immigration policy
Immigration was historically a state issue. It never become a federal issue until sometime after the Civil War. We understand that immigration is a highly contentious issue. People should be free to move and work where they choose. However, if an immigrant moves into an area, does nothing to help the economy, but lives at taxpayer expense, that creates a problem. The real solution to these problems is to prevent "welfare" from being an option for these sorts of immigrants. We recognize that most immigrants are hard-working, and believe these are the sort of immigrants we want to attract to our communities. It should be known to all that there is no free lunch here in New Hampshire. We are a land of opportunity for those who want to work, not a land where we steal from those who have worked hard in order to provide freebies for those who don't want to work at all.

We do recognize, however, that massive population growth can have negative effects. For instance, roads can take a beating when exposed to greater wear than that for which they were engineered. We believe that entrepreneurs and businesses should be allowed to build new roads as needed, purchasing land and space from voluntary sellers. A business has great incentive to ensure that there is plenty of road access to its location. But rapid population increase due to immigration could overwhelm this natural system.

However, logistically, a person is unlikely to move to a place if the housing market is out of his price range. We believe that New Hampshire's independence will position us to be among the most affluent citizens in the world. Housing would find its natural equilibrium and act as a natural deterrent to runaway immigration.

Immigrants can also potentially cause political problems. They are routinely used as an effective method of "buying votes," as politicians cater to special interest groups. It would be a shame to declare independence from federal tyranny, only to establish it here at home.

We believe it is in the best interests of New Hampshire, therefore, to take a "wait and see" attitude. If free and unfettered immigration does become a problem in New Hampshire, we believe local cities, towns, municipalities, and counties are the proper places to make such determinations. Immigration, ultimately, should be a local issue. Local governments in New Hampshire have extreme differences in their approaches to different problems. Hence if immigration becomes a problem in some city, the individual city is in the best position to determine how best to handle it.

We believe that uncontrolled immigration is a problem faced by communities, not states. When decisions are centralized, uniformity tends to be enforced, whereas diverse communities may require diverse solutions. We believe that local governments should have more sovereignty than the State.

No more federal gun restrictions
Finally, we could take back our right to bear arms. We would be freed from antagonistic gun restrictions and the misguided Brady Bill. Individuals have a complete right to self-defense. Understandably, some won't like this. But in the long run, this policy should be enticing even to liberals: With a complete right to self-defense, there would be less "need" for police. When there is less crime, there is less reason for municipalities to increase their police forces. With good reason, liberals have historically mistrusted the police, who often use antiquated or non-existent laws to harass individuals. Sometimes the police engage in corrupt activity, or enforce laws selectively. Everyone can agree that police do very little to prevent crime. Their action is mostly limited to acting after a crime has been committed. Despite this fact, local governments routinely use tough "anti-crime" measures as the excuse for increasing the police force and creating new laws to take away yet more of our already eroded freedoms.

Gun rights also minimize the need for government military. When citizens are armed and have the ability to defend their own property, the government is able to be much more decentralized and efficient. Such a network becomes a far more powerful method of defense than any government monopoly can provide. By using liberal gun rights to minimize the need for police and military, we would have less worry that New Hampshire might eventually suffer the fate of the United States by becoming a police or military state in the future. At the same time, we would be creating an environment where real crime prevention is possible. By declaring our independence from the federal government and eliminating firearm restrictions entirely, New Hampshire is likely to become both the safest and freest area in North America.