The NH House is “a bunch of part-time real-estate agents throwing monkey feces at a wall”

So charges Ilya Gerner at Comedy Central:

New Hampshire Legislators Introduce Freedom to Beat Your Spouse Bills

One thing to keep in mind whenever a presidential candidate suggests that some issue is best handled at the state or local level is the fact that this relegates lawmaking to state and local legislators and absolutely nothing about the history of governments suggests that is a good idea. Our “laboratories of democracy” are basically 50 self-contained arguments against federalism.

Take New Hampshire, which in some populist conceit has decided that every dozen residents need their own severely under-resourced and under-paid state legislator, who will somehow remain “close to the people.” Of course, the natural conclusion of “citizen legislatures” isn’t home-spun wisdom and incorruptibility, insomuch as a bunch of part-time real-estate agents throwing monkey feces at a wall and calling the result a “House Bill.”

Continue reading about “The latest in the New Hampshire legislature’s attempt to beclown their state as the Arizona of New England” at Comedy Central’s Indecision blog.

(HT: William Tucker.)

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. I've heard the State House is juggling with quite a bit of legislation which many would probably call "far-right". Not just the "beat your spouse" bill but others.

    For example, this one bill which would exempt NH-made products from FDA regulations:

    I can find tons of pros and cons for a bill like this. I like the idea of having more local control, although I can't help but wonder how this would affect interstate commerce since NH products would no doubt be looked at as "unsafe" in states with much tougher regulations.

    Not sure if you've seen this as well, but people over at crooksandliars are pinning the influx of far-right bills in NH to the Koch brothers:

  2. HB1608 appears to be the bill. It doesn’t look like that big a deal. And in my opinion this bill doesn’t go far enough—they ought to eliminate altogether the requirement that a domestic violence complaint automatically lead to an arrest. More often than not the State stepping into the middle of a private personal dispute does more harm than good.

  3. Of course, for anyone who actually understands the law before commenting (crazy notion, I know…), this is no surprise, and there's no hidden desire to protect wife-beaters.

    The problem is not with the distribution of power, but with the centralization. The Feds have decided that anyone who is accused of domestic violence automatically loses the freedom to exercise their fundamental human rights, with less due process than occurred at witch trials.

    The only ways to guarantee the protection of due process, therefore, would be to either overthrow the Federal government, or to insert due process between the accusation and the arrest. Remove the Lautenberg nonsense (and every other gun law, for that matter…) from the Federal laws, and Itse would not likely be supporting such a bill.

    But I suppose that actually educating oneself is too much trouble. Writing ignorant rants on the Internet is so much easier…

  4. MaineDork on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 1:10 pm

    I suppose that actually educating oneself is too much trouble. Writing ignorant rants on the Internet is so much easier…

    Amazing that you were able to type that while looking in the mirror.

  5. Not really, no. There are certainly things folks might fault me for, but lack of education on these issues is not one of them…

  6. Julia, what's your issue with that? It's a heavily pro-liberty bill. Government funds, in the form of wages, should not be diverted to private lobbying groups, like unions. If an employee wants to donate to such a group, that's his right. If another does not, that's his right.

    If it were like the earlier "RTW" bill that would have applied to private businesses, I would not support it. In fact, I worked to defeat that bill, as it was a wholly anti-liberty interference in private contracts.

    But we're talking about public funds. Surely you don't want private organizations receiving public funds to use for their own, corporatist benefit?

  7. Julia is a anarchist on the weekends… the rest of the time she is a big government democrat.

    I don't know what is more damaging to the advancement of liberty? Democrats in anarcho-communists clothing or republicans in libertarian clothing. Both only dabble with the ideas of freedom… in the end they both end up promoting their flavor of big government.

    Much misery is caused by the requirement to arrest someone when showing up to stop a domestic fight. Women often use the big government stick to punish men when they should be working to deescalate the situation. Getting the cops and courts involved in your marriage is pretty damaging… work it out instead of trying to "win".

  8. Regardless, it's making the right-libertarians in NH (and the NH political system in general) look pretty asshole-y.

  9. i think spearer O'Brian is ….. a big part or it: he'd be that way without The Koch bros.

  10. A friend of mine told me that the Koch brothers give scholarships to send libertarian-minded youth to Porcfest. This isn't a conspiracy, it's open knowledge.

    Notice: I never said "the FSP or porcfest is funded by the Kochs", just that they fund people's trips to porcfest.

  11. Nope, Julia you only said that "a friend" told you so. When all the dust settles, a liar such as you is always revealed for a socialist, never an anarchist.

    Why would any gooberment worker ever need a union?


  13. Julia,

    Fess up,who are you working for?

  14. Really? I'd like to see some evidence to back up that claim, Julia. There are some folks I know who would certainly attend PorcFest if they could afford it, so if there's some scholarship available that would help, that would be great to know. Can you provide me with the information on that?

    Or did you just make it up?

  15. maybe julia is working for Thurston Howell The Third

  16. to undermine the efforts of the people groping for freedom, WHY Julia!? Is the money that good?

  17. "groping for freedom"…???….WTF…???…

  18. Julia-

    There have been a lot of unusual right-wing bills lately. It's probably true that some have been inspired by ALEC (which =/= the Koch brothers). Some of it comes from Free Staters. But most of it, IMO, is a result of the Tea Party radicalizing the Republican Party.

  19. @MaineShark In regards to RTW vis-a-vis state employees you stated "But we’re talking about public funds" and therein lies the flaw in your reasoning. As a state employee I earn my paycheck. While 'public funds' may be the source of the pay, once it's mine – it's mine! and I can do with it what I like. It's repugnant the legislature presumes that it can dictate what I can do with my money as if I was some second-class citizen. Quite frankly, their efforts only serve to show how deluded,gullible, and close-minded they really are and that when any of them speak of "Liberty" they mean "The Liberty as I decree".

  20. What are you talking about? Once it's yours, you're free to give it to a union. But when you are /required/ to pay the money to the union, then that portion of the money was never really yours, because you cannot choose how to spend it; you're just a middle-man, handing that bit from the government, to the union.

    What this bill says is that you cannot be /required/ to give it to a union. It gives you free choice to spend it how you see fit. Give it to a union, donate it to charity, buy a new TV – you'd be fully in control of what you do with that it.

    Currently, you can be /required/ to give it to a union. And no public funds should be /automatically/ diverted to private lobbying groups. If you want to choose to support that group, have fun. But once it is happening automatically, then the government might as well be writing the check directly to the union and skipping the middle-man. That's an unacceptable use of public funds.

Care to comment?