Sweatshops in a realistic light.

[Babylon]

Yeah, and I am Zorax, Emperor of Delaxia and ruler of half of the known universe.

The reality of the matter is that the sweatshops are necessary - 100% necessary.  The only reason we don't have them here anymore is because we outsourced them due to things like evironmental and safety regulations and unions driving up the price of labor (not some magical capitalism fairy).  The third-world doesn't have anywhere else to outsource them to, so they're stuck with it forever.

How did environmental/safety regulations and unions have the power to do anything, though? What reason would ANY factory have to open with a population of people unwilling to work at correct market prices? Also, why did those countries gain their middle class before such things existed?

Why do I even bother?
APPEAL TO TIME PERIOD

APPEAL TO ABSURDITY

CITATION NEEDED

You fancy sexy time at the Time Cube Cabaret.

Correct market prices REQUIRE TWO TO TANGO. If one or both parties refuse a price, then IT'S NOT THE CORRECT MARKET PRICE.

Assuming price is the only bargaining chip is corporatist fail.

Too bad that a sweatshop worker working at a sweatshop, by default, accepts the price of his own labour. If sweatshops are evil because one/both parties refuse a price, then they cannot work because the workers would refuse to work there or the sweatshops wouldn't employ them, meaning that the problem of sweatshops would solve itself, but if the workers accept it then they are accepting the given price/wage therefore it is a correct market price making it is clearly disadvantageous for the workers to have their workplace removed. QED

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

Exactly, it's part of the power difference, but no one wants to take that into consideration.

The issue is not government.  The issue is the BUSINESSES that influence the government do things like remove unionization, regulation, safety standards, minimum wage, working standards, etc.  It's this completely deregulated environment that allows things like sweatshops to exist, and big business NEEDS sweatshops.  Ironically, this environment is GREAT for business, as it possesses all the things capitalists desire.

Trying to separate business and government is a false dichotomy,  and is the failure of both Libertarian (in the US sense) and Liberal (also in the US sense)

[1714140821]

1714140821

[1714140821]

1714140821

[1714140821]

1714140821

[AyeYo]

As I've already said, LOTS of bitching and whining about what you're "forced" into... but you're still here, voluntarily. 

Where is here?

Also, didn't we already cover this? The government doesn't have claim to our land. Additionally, where else is there to go? Please, point me to a place that has no government and I will head there immediately.

Also, your logic is failtastic. By the same logic, the Ukrainians are to blame for being killed by the Soviets, the middle class in Cambodia is to blame for not leaving the country, the Jews in Germany are to blame for not leaving Germany, etc.

I ask again. Where is the consistency?

Those other situations are not comparable.  You can figure out why all by yourself (hint: it's really obvious),  I'm not your history teacher.

This isn't YOUR land.  This is the land of the people (ALL the people) of the United States of America.

Where you go is up to you.  Buy a house boat and go float on the ocean.  The fact that you're too lazy to find somewhere you'd like better doesn't mean you're FORCED to live here under conditions you don't agree with.

[myrkul]

Although holding polarized, extreme, and largely unexamined opinions might be entertaining, they aren't very productive. Demonizing an entire establishment or group should be left for the middle-school-aged, Rage-Against-The-Machine-Listening kids.

Polarized and extreme I will grant you. The opinions however, are anything but unexamined. Libertarian theories are some of the most debated theories out there.

[AyeYo]

Comparing being a slave to being an American citizen...c'mon now.

Cut it with the sensationalism. The reality is far more nuanced than simply declaring the powers-that-be as good or bad.

Although holding polarized, extreme, and largely unexamined opinions might be entertaining, they aren't very productive. Demonizing an entire establishment or group should be left for the middle-school-aged, Rage-Against-The-Machine-Listening kids.

No way, man.  We're all about the hyperbole and black/white worlds here.

[Babylon]

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. - Emma Goldman

Voting changes politicians all the time.  The lack of systemic change rests solely on the shoulders of the lazy, ignorant, uninformed, apathetic populace.  They'll all bitch and moan that life sucks, the country is going down the drain, all the politicians are horrible, etc., but when the ballot boxes open, they're no where to be seen.  When campaign season starts, they're too busy on the internet bitching and whining.  When there's a local government meeting going on, they're at home playing on their iPad.

The problem is, there's no 'None of the above' option. Lesser of two evils is still evil.

So vote third party

[myrkul]

So vote third party

Let me rephrase: The Lesser of n evils is still evil.

[Babylon]

We can't leave. The central banks have a monopoly on all of the wealth and every first-world state is a cattle state.

Then go move to a third-world state.  Greece was selling island not long ago.  Get a bunch of your nutty libertarian friends together, buy one, and establish liberland.

As long as you choose to sit here and bitch, you choose to follow the rules.  You're free to leave at any time.  You do have a choice.

Once we establish it, you parasites will come and take it. You will consider us a threat because of our prosperity. Everybody would be coming to us eventually.

So anarcho capitalism can't actually co-exist with other systems?  That was alwys given as one of it's strengths.  If you can't compete, quit whining and support a system that can.

[AyeYo]

So vote third party

Let me rephrase: The Lesser of n evils is still evil.

What's stopping you from running?

[myrkul]

So vote third party

Let me rephrase: The Lesser of n evils is still evil.

What's stopping you from running?

It's no better elsewhere?

[LastBattle]

As I've already said, LOTS of bitching and whining about what you're "forced" into... but you're still here, voluntarily. 

Where is here?

Also, didn't we already cover this? The government doesn't have claim to our land. Additionally, where else is there to go? Please, point me to a place that has no government and I will head there immediately.

Also, your logic is failtastic. By the same logic, the Ukrainians are to blame for being killed by the Soviets, the middle class in Cambodia is to blame for not leaving the country, the Jews in Germany are to blame for not leaving Germany, etc.

I ask again. Where is the consistency?

Those other situations are not comparable.  You can figure out why all by yourself (hint: it's really obvious),  I'm not your history teacher.

This isn't YOUR land.  This is the land of the people (ALL the people) of the United States of America.

Where you go is up to you.  Buy a house boat and go float on the ocean.  The fact that you're too lazy to find somewhere you'd like better doesn't mean you're FORCED to live here under conditions you don't agree with.

The world is flat. You can figure out why it is flat (hint: it's really obvious). I am not your science teacher.

You see how easy that was? I just made a blatantly false claim, dismissed you using evidence that I refuse to provide, and followed it up with ridicule. Allow me to quote your previous post:

Arguing a societal system is all about consistency.  It's easy to come up with seemingly viable systems if you use arbitrary application of principles and standards, but those systems, like your libertarian system, don't pass the consistency test.  Real-world workable systems must be consistent, because the real world is too complex and includes people of too many differeing opinions for you to get away with using YOUR arbitrary standards.

You aren't giving me a societal system with consistency, you're making wild claims, dismissals, and refusing to actually answer the big questions by dodging them.
Okay, government control and slavery are not the same. However, your argument is sufficiently broad as to make the exact same justification for both.
A decent argument, like a decent theorem, has to ALWAYS be true (unless exceptions are provided therein, which you aren't doing). For example, the statement "Gravity applies everywhere" must, indeed, apply everywhere. If apples begin to fall up in New Jersey, it doesn't matter that you didn't mention "Apples" in your argument, the fact that they are falling up indicates that the aforementioned statement is false. If you don't like to have to justify your own statements, then don't bother making them.

---

I was unaware that the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA own my land. I think you have made a minor mistake. The country you are looking for is the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, which shall free the workers by giving them control of the means of production and ending wage slavery. Come to think of it, your train of logic also seems to pass right beside that of a Communist, though an honest Communist at the very least is willing to explain exactly what he supports and why he supports it, unlike you. Again, consistency would be nice.

You still haven't dealt with every other oppressed group that, going by your argument, is responsible for its own problems for not leaving.

---

The mafia doesn't force people to stay in town, either. Try again.

Oh, you still haven't explained what separates a GANG or the MAFIA from a GOVERNMENT. Does the Mafia become the Government the instant it acquires enough firepower to declare itself independent without being beaten back? Is the government just the guys with the biggest guns? If so, how exactly does that distinguish it from the doomsday group you were talking about in that other thread in an anarchist world? Once you can do that, I will give you some actual responses. Though come to think of it, how do you know we aren't already isolated from the state? We are guys on the internet.

So anarcho capitalism can't actually co-exist with other systems?  That was alwys given as one of it's strengths.  If you can't compete, quit whining and support a system that can.

No system can coexist with a system that will destroy it the instant it pops into existence. Okay, Greece is selling its islands. I was unaware that they were giving independence to the owners of the aforementioned islands. If an ancap society was formed on the ashes of a state (say, in New Hampshire) it might survive, if only because the states wouldn't be able to claim the ability to tax and therefore control it.

Also, flawed logic. Poland couldn't compete with the USSR and was ultimately absorbed into the Soviet Union, as was the Ukraine and the Black Army (who were stabbed in the back by the Reds). Inability to coexist with a larger and expansionist neighbor does not indicate failure of the system. If a group of social democrats bought those islands they wouldn't be allowed to make their own state there, either.

Anyway, I am not a "pure" ancap since I am a bit too cynical for that. I am quite willing to settle for the best compromise. Infinite secession would be fine by me, too.

[AyeYo]

So vote third party

Let me rephrase: The Lesser of n evils is still evil.

What's stopping you from running?

It's no better elsewhere?

What an excuse maker.  That's why no one is worried about libertarians, because they're all too lazy to get off their asses and DO anything.


And I didn't mean run away, I meant run for office.  You don't like any options, be one of the options.

[AyeYo]

No system can coexist with a system that will destroy it the instant it pops into existence. Okay, Greece is selling its islands. I was unaware that they were giving independence to the owners of the aforementioned islands. If an ancap society was formed on the ashes of a state (say, in New Hampshire) it might survive, if only because the states wouldn't be able to claim the ability to tax and therefore control it.

How is Greece going to tax something it no longer owns?  SELLING IT means it's not part of Greece anymore.  Does that make any sense to you? 


As for the rest of the crap, I'm not going to sit here and give you a history lesson and go through each of your idiotically irrelevant attempted comparisons just to make you understand the difference between people being FORCE TO STAY and people that are perfectly free to leave (like you are).

[LastBattle]

So vote third party

Let me rephrase: The Lesser of n evils is still evil.

What's stopping you from running?

It's no better elsewhere?

What an excuse maker.  That's why no one is worried about libertarians, because they're all too lazy to get off their asses and DO anything.


And I didn't mean run away, I meant run for office.  You don't like any options, be one of the options.

Would you join the NKVD for the purposes of changing the Soviet Union from within, ignoring the fact that to get to the point to be able to change anything you would have to practically climb a pyramid of corpses to get to the top?

Yeah, that is how some of the more "pure" ancaps see it. I don't run for office for a variety of practical reasons, the only one relevant to this discussion is that candidates who win elections either pander and lie through their teeth or receive absurd amounts of money from special interests.

If you want an example of Libertarians "doing something" in that manner, look at New Hampshire. About a thousand Libertarians there have already practically taken over state legislature and are shooting down spending bills and regulations left and right. Of course, the resident statists there are screaming bloody murder, but it is working quite nicely. Were I able and American, I would probably move there myself.

Actually, come to think of it, that raises an interesting question that you might not avoid altogether: if the state government of New Hampshire was completely taken over by the libertarians there, what would they be able to do? Could they secede, or would the federal government be allowed to invade and conquer them for that? Are people in California allowed to make decisions for people in New Hampshire? How local can government be? If the more radical Free Statists took over, would they be allowed to dissolve the government altogether, or would Maine and Vermont move in and annex the area?

As for the rest of the crap, I'm not going to sit here and give you a history lesson and go through each of your idiotically irrelevant attempted comparisons just to make you understand the difference between people being FORCE TO STAY and people that are perfectly free to leave (like you are).

Well, lets see. Out of the three examples I provided, the Cambodians probably fall closest to "FORCED TO STAY", though they were always fully able to head for Vietnam (which ultimately ended up invading, anyway). The Kulaks and Ukrainians were fully able to leave to, especially to Turkey (as my cousins in Rostov-Na-Donu can attest to), and the Jews in Germany were practically encouraged to leave (with limited possessions, true, but then there are plenty of regulations on emigration in my own country, too), with the main problem being that the world of the time was isolationist and FDR was an asshole who refused to let the Jews in.

How is Greece going to tax something it no longer owns?  SELLING IT means it's not part of Greece anymore.  Does that make any sense to you?  Roll Eyes

Have you ever heard of national claims? If the Greeks didn't come back and claim it as part of their nation again after they recovered (or rather, with the brand new government after the collapse), then the Turks would. I challenge you to find me a country that literally sold its land to individuals who then proceeded to establish (and maintain) their very own nation without the land being reclaimed later.

[myrkul]

And I didn't mean run away, I meant run for office.  You don't like any options, be one of the options.

So, to remedy the problems I see with a system that robs people to pay for things they don't ask for and often don't want, I should become one of the robbers? So, maybe I can make sure the stolen money goes to a good cause?

[AyeYo]

And I didn't mean run away, I meant run for office.  You don't like any options, be one of the options.

So, to remedy the problems I see with a system that robs people to pay for things they don't ask for and often don't want, I should become one of the robbers? So, maybe I can make sure the stolen money goes to a good cause?

Or you can sit there and bitch and whine for the rest of your life about how you much you hate the government, all while sucking on its teet and enjoying its benefits.  That's your call.

[myrkul]

And I didn't mean run away, I meant run for office.  You don't like any options, be one of the options.

So, to remedy the problems I see with a system that robs people to pay for things they don't ask for and often don't want, I should become one of the robbers? So, maybe I can make sure the stolen money goes to a good cause?

Or you can sit there and bitch and whine for the rest of your life about how you much you hate the government, all while sucking on its teet and enjoying its benefits.  That's your call.

Love how you assume I don't do anything. Didn't you post some lovely little video a while back...?

[AyeYo]

Would you join the NKVD for the purposes of changing the Soviet Union from within, ignoring the fact that to get to the point to be able to change anything you would have to practically climb a pyramid of corpses to get to the top?

Yeah, that is how some of the more "pure" ancaps see it. I don't run for office for a variety of practical reasons, the only one relevant to this discussion is that candidates who win elections either pander and lie through their teeth or receive absurd amounts of money from special interests.

So your excusing for not getting off your ass and being the change you want to see is that... you're doomed to become corrupt?  That's an outstanding excuse.  That gives me even more respect for you.

If you want an example of Libertarians "doing something" in that manner, look at New Hampshire. About a thousand Libertarians there have already practically taken over state legislature and are shooting down spending bills and regulations left and right. Of course, the resident statists there are screaming bloody murder, but it is working quite nicely. Were I able and American, I would probably move there myself.

Actually, come to think of it, that raises an interesting question that you might not avoid altogether: if the state government of New Hampshire was completely taken over by the libertarians there, what would they be able to do? Could they secede, or would the federal government be allowed to invade and conquer them for that? Are people in California allowed to make decisions for people in New Hampshire? How local can government be? If the more radical Free Statists took over, would they be allowed to dissolve the government altogether, or would Maine and Vermont move in and annex the area?

No one is seceding from the US because no one is that stupid - except the libertarians.  Quite honestly, I would LOVE to see NH get completely taken over by the libertarians and pull out of the Union.  There would be no fight to stop it because it contains nothing of value, therefore it's not worth the hassle.

The libertarians could then institute all the policies (or lack thereof) that they want and the entire world will sit and watch as NH crashes and burns.  The libertarians will finally get what they want and suffer the flaws of their system first-hand and your online debating landscape will never be the same again.


To more directly answer your question, local government can be quite powerful.  A good example of people willing to actually get off their asses and do something to push their agenda is Montana, which recently passed a law exempting citizens from all federal fire arms laws when purchasing/selling guns that are made within the state (correctly citing that the interstate commerce power of the federal government does not apply to completely in-state manufactured products).  That's a great example of a state population getting together on a local level and telling the feds to shove it up their ass.  It IS doable and it DOES happen in the real world, but it requires effort, something that people of ALL belief systems are too apathetic to give.  

Montana also briefly attempted to do away with speed limits, making a state-wide speed limit of "reasonable and prudent for the conditions".  However, this was quickly killed when the federal government threatened to pull all highway aid dollars if the bill passed, and Montana caved immediately because they realized what NH will eventually realize, they need the US, the US doesn't need them.

[LastBattle]

And I didn't mean run away, I meant run for office.  You don't like any options, be one of the options.

So, to remedy the problems I see with a system that robs people to pay for things they don't ask for and often don't want, I should become one of the robbers? So, maybe I can make sure the stolen money goes to a good cause?

Or you can sit there and bitch and whine for the rest of your life about how you much you hate the government, all while sucking on its teet and enjoying its benefits.  That's your call.

This is the internet. How do you know he isn't in the jungle with satellite internet away from any government? Or involved in some kind of insurrection? Or not accepting government benefits (barring the inane ones that government has no responsibility for at all, like "clean air")? You sure are making a lot of assumptions.

So your excusing for not getting off your ass and being the change you want to see is that... you're doomed to become corrupt?  That's an outstanding excuse.  That gives me even more respect for you.

To succeed I would have to be corrupt, or absurdly fortunate. In my own country, I can't think of a single honest politician in national office and only a handful in local office (though local office is largely irrelevant due to centralization). In the US, I can count the number of politicians in national office who aren't controlled by a special interest of some kind on my left hand (except in local office in certain states, and again, ambiguity as to state vs federal powers means that they are unlikely to make large enough changes to matter).

No one is seceding from the US because no one is that stupid - except the libertarians.  Quite honestly, I would LOVE to see NH get completely taken over by the libertarians and pull out of the Union.  There would be no fight to stop it because it contains nothing of value, therefore it's not worth the hassle.

The libertarians could then institute all the policies (or lack thereof) that they want and the entire world will sit and watch as NH crashes and burns.  The libertarians will finally get what they want and suffer the flaws of their system first-hand and your online debating landscape will never be the same again.

Okay. Assume we are wrong, then, and it all falls apart on its own. Why can't we be free to screw ourselves over?

Otherwise, what happens if we are right? What happens if NH seceded, followed by the wealth leaving the US for the state? Would the US tolerate New Hampshirites doing things it considers illegal (eg. drugs, easy access to guns, etc) and pulling the rug out from under it?

Keep in mind, going by the current indications of the region, that is the more likely outcome, too. New Hampshire, with less regulations, taxes, etc, is the most prosperous state in New England. Industry has recently been relocating from more established areas with less freedom (like Massachusetts) to New Hampshire. New Hampshire also has the lowest unemployment rate in the area. The only thing limiting the state's growth right now is population, and that would change with easy immigration policies and prosperity. If you want a cool comparison, try New Hampshire and Maine. The two have basically the same population, Maine is larger and has more sea access, yet New Hampshire makes Maine look like its retarded younger brother.

To more directly answer your question, local government can be quite powerful.  A good example of people willing to actually get off their asses and do something to push their agenda is Montana, which recently passed a law exempting citizens from all federal fire arms laws when purchasing/selling guns that are made within the state (correctly citing that the interstate commerce power of the federal government does not apply to completely in-state manufactured products).  That's a great example of a state population getting together on a local level and telling the feds to shove it up their ass.  It IS doable and it DOES happen in the real world, but it requires effort, something that people of ALL belief systems are too apathetic to give. 

Montana also briefly attempted to do away with speed limits, making a state-wide speed limit of "reasonable and prudent for the conditions".  However, this was quickly killed when the federal government threatened to pull all highway aid dollars if the bill passed, and Montana caved immediately because they realized what NH will eventually realize, they need the US, the US doesn't need them.

Which wouldn't work in New Hampshire, seeing as how the legislature has actually rejected bills BECAUSE it requires that the Federal government give money to the state.

If a state actually nullified a law that the Feds cared about, they can and will overextend their power to prevent it. Look at Texas. Texas was about to basically wipe out the TSA in the state, when the Feds threatened to create a no-fly zone around the state if they did so. This would be a huge hit to Texas's industry, and thus they backed down (though certain crooked individuals, such as Rick Perry, did everything in their power to make it hard to pass anyway).

What would the Feds do if a large state like Texas seceded? Texas is the world's tenth largest economy. If it left the union, the US would either force the Texans back in or it would collapse in on itself.

[AyeYo]

Okay. Assume we are wrong, then, and it all falls apart on its own. Why can't we be free to screw ourselves over?

You are, 100%.  I not only said it was ok, I said I hope it happens.  Hell, I'll donate to the libertarian party in NH if it means they'll pull away and start to build their fantasy utopia.

Otherwise, what happens if we are right? What happens if NH seceded, followed by the wealth leaving the US for the state? Would the US tolerate New Hampshirites doing things it considers illegal (eg. drugs, easy access to guns, etc) and pulling the rug out from under it?

Other countries already do things the US considers illegal.  I can see there being issues with people running drugs, guns, and child prostitutes over the border, but we have that same issue with Mexico and haven't invaded them yet.

The wealth won't leave the US because the standard of living in NH would be laughable and no one would want to go there.  Like I said, NH has nothing of value so it'd be in for a world of hurt by attempting to go on it alone.  They'd have to import... well... damn near everything.  In return they'd have... well... nothing to export.  You can't export nice moutains and pretty views.

Keep in mind, going by the current indications of the region, that is the more likely outcome, too. New Hampshire, with less regulations, taxes, etc, is the most prosperous state in New England. Industry has recently been relocating from more established areas with less freedom (like Massachusetts) to New Hampshire. New Hampshire also has the lowest unemployment rate in the area. The only thing limiting the state's growth right now is population, and that would change with easy immigration policies and prosperity. If you want a cool comparison, try New Hampshire and Maine. The two have basically the same population, Maine is larger and has more sea access, yet New Hampshire makes Maine look like its retarded younger brother.

I did some quick number checking here, but I'm not going to waste the time transfering them all over here.

Take a look here: http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/20/states-debt-pensions-interactive-map.html

If you look at NH's numbers, you'll notice that it has 2-3x the population growth of most other states in the region, but does not have 2-3x the job growth, income growth, or state product growth.  So, in a nut shell, the gains you're seeing are from increased population, and they're actually sub-par when divided by that population increase.

Which wouldn't work in New Hampshire, seeing as how the legislature has actually rejected bills BECAUSE it requires that the Federal government give money to the state.

Good point.  NH is the rare exception of "free market" leaning states in that it actually well below the average of federal aid dollars received vs. federal taxes collected.  Most of the other free market states are, ironically, actually heavily subsidized by the supposedly evil socialist states. 

You can review that further here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

If a state actually nullified a law that the Feds cared about, they can and will overextend their power to prevent it. Look at Texas. Texas was about to basically wipe out the TSA in the state, when the Feds threatened to create a no-fly zone around the state if they did so. This would be a huge hit to Texas's industry, and thus they backed down (though certain crooked individuals, such as Rick Perry, did everything in their power to make it hard to pass anyway).

What would the Feds do if a large state like Texas seceded? Texas is the world's tenth largest economy. If it left the union, the US would either force the Texans back in or it would collapse in on itself.

Texas is not comparable to NH because, as you pointed out, Texas is actually in a position to leave and, not just survive, but thrive.  They have their own natural resources, farms, large military installations, many ports, a large population, and they are doing well financially.  The US needs Texas more than Texas needs the US.  That's not the case with NH, so it's a pointless comparison.

[LastBattle]

Texas is not comparable to NH because, as you pointed out, Texas is actually in a position to leave and, not just survive, but thrive.  They have their own natural resources, farms, large military installations, many ports, a large population, and they are doing well financially.  The US needs Texas more than Texas needs the US.  That's not the case with NH, so it's a pointless comparison.

So it would be justified if the US dragged Texas back into the union?

The wealth won't leave the US because the standard of living in NH would be laughable and no one would want to go there.  Like I said, NH has nothing of value so it'd be in for a world of hurt by attempting to go on it alone.  They'd have to import... well... damn near everything.  In return they'd have... well... nothing to export.  You can't export nice moutains and pretty views.

Hong Kong is extremely prosperous and it has even less things of value than New Hampshire does. New Hampshire has quite a bit of land and potential for the establishment of industries. Hong Kong is a rock. Yet it is a rock with a heavy emphasis on free trade, and thus is doing quite well.

If you look at NH's numbers, you'll notice that it has 2-3x the population growth of most other states in the region, but does not have 2-3x the job growth, income growth, or state product growth.  So, in a nut shell, the gains you're seeing are from increased population, and they're actually sub-par when divided by that population increase.

Population growth is not a bad thing. As I said, one of the main reasons New Hampshire isn't getting most of the industry of the Northeast is because it doesn't have the population to support it. A sizable portion of New Hampshire's growth comes from people from Massachusetts moving to escape the high taxes, though I don't see how that indicates that New Hampshire is in a bad situation.

Also, comparing unemployment, New Hampshire has about 5.4% unemployment (Forbes' list is somewhat outdated) compared to 7.6% (Massachusetts), 7.4% (Maine), and 6.2% (Vermont).

Good point.  NH is the rare exception of "free market" leaning states in that it actually well below the average of federal aid dollars received vs. federal taxes collected.  Most of the other free market states are, ironically, actually heavily subsidized by the supposedly evil socialist states.

You can review that further here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

See, there is a reason I am referring to New Hampshire specifically, as opposed to "Free market states".