What can be done to make NH the most libertarian state

In previous posts I have mentioned that I believe we need to
pay attention making the state as libertarian as possible BEFORE
I have looked at a number of ways to do that.
In this first installment, “age of majority” will be addressed.
If we are to get the government out of more of our lives,
this is one place to start.

Looking at age of majority legislation in all 50 states, it appears
that we will have to make the following changes to current law.

  1. Add a provision for marriage at age 16 with parental or judicial
  2. Add a provision that allows age of consent to be attained at
    the time of marriage of minors.

The following file contains all the raw data from which the recommendations were drawn.

Age of Majority.odt (27.8 KB)

All laws are window dressing in NH. You need a constitutional amendment that takes 2/3rds majority to pass a law and 1/2 to repeal it (this would not apply to the Budget, likely). This will drive a stake through the heart of partisan politics and slow the passing of unpopular laws. You want a libertarian state? This is the route.

When I’m done with the revised statutes, I will address the constitution.
But, that is a whole other issue. The constitution is so riddled with problems
that I thought it better to begin with the RSA, which will lead naturally to
the constitution.

The other thing is… I’m trying to compare NH with all the other states, re
libertarianism. Most people believe that NH is fairly libertarian. So I’m
looking to see how the laws of each state compare, to get an idea of
just how relatively libertarian we are.

As seen above, age of marriage affects, so some extent, attainment of majority.
So, what is the minimum age for marriage in the 50 states.

25 states explicitly state that marriage is a civil contract. In this sense, there is no difference between a marriage and a civil union. The biggest difference is that some states indicated that that only same-sex partners may enter a civil union.
It might be surprising to learn that only 19, less than half, of the states have explicitly allowed same-sex marriage in their statutes. Some others have relied on state supreme court decisions to make it legal. In some cases the statutes simply have changed the wording from “man” and “woman” to “persons”. A few have relied on a definition that states that any reference to gendered pronouns should be interpreted as gender-neutral.
This leaves 31 states that have expressly prohibited same-sex marriages/civil unions or have explicitly stated that a marriage is between one man and one woman.

All states have a standard age of 18 as the age at which persons may contract marriage without requiring consent from anyone else.
A few, as stated in the post about age of majority, confirm that marriage confers emancipation to the partners. In every case, emancipated minors may always contract for marriage.
In most states, 16 and 17 year olds require consent of parents or a court to marry, and there might be Romeo and Juliet Laws that apply.
With judicial approval, Alaskans of age 14 can marry; Kansans of 15 can marry; Mississippians of 15 can marry; Hawaiians of 15 can marry; Marylanders of 15 can marry.
Most states explicitly prohibit most persons under 16 from marrying.

New Hampshire already has a minimum age for marriage without consent at 18, marriage for 16 and 17 year olds with parental and/or judicial consent, no marriage for persons under 16.
To come down to the lower ages, NH would have to allow 14 and 15 y.o. to marry with consent from judges and juvenile authorities. I imagine that this does not and would not happen very often, if at all.
NH already allows same-sex marriages.

The raw data used to compile this information is found in the attached file.

Age of marriage, same-sex marriage.odt (55.0 KB)

I think you are proceeding from a false dichotomy. “Slavery” based on age, is still slavery. Some 16 year olds are more mature than some 30 year olds. Some 10 year olds are more mature than some 16 year olds, it’s all a manner of ability, experience, and nurturing for a desired result.

Statistically, those over the age of majority make bad choices some of the time. Those over the age of 60 make less bad choices then 21 year olds. Should this be the basis of denying someone the right to do something as long as they don’t harm someone or their property?

How about we try this new idea, it’s called “liberty”. You keep your rules off my person and the persons in my family, and I’ll keep my rules off your person and person’s in your family.

We need only three Laws, because every rule or “laws”, because any rule or “law” that is a crime is already accounted for in the three simple Laws. Do not murder. Do not enslave. Do not damage other people or their property.

People who want more “laws” or more rules are just petty tyrants wanting to control others. If you say, “there ought to be a ‘law’” you are a tyrant, and death be to tyrants.

One current legal status is that under 18, the person is not legally held responsible for performing contracts they’ve negotiated.
This is relatively arbitrary as well as the throwback prohibition on alcohol for young people.
These are meant to protect the person from abuses such as indentured servitude which was prominent in the initial colonization.
Ultimately, using better systems of protection and performance should alleviate the impact of legacy systs such as these.

1 Like

I agree with everything you have said, cyberdoo. I don’t find any reason for the state to interfere with marriages in any way. But they do. I am simply trying to determine how NH compares with other states. Believe me, I’m an anarchist who would like to see the state go away.
In other words, it’s a comparative study.

If 14 or 15 or 16 year old don’t have any say now, and they can have at least some say, I believe that increases liberty, even if only by a little bit.

It does seem reducing fertility rates and actively depopulating are modern trends the legacy system has been coopted to pursue as well, the laws haven’t quite caught up with that trend yet thankfully.

1 Like

The reason I have put this under NHExit is because when we do secede, we are going to have
the chance to make things what we want. Until then, we can do things to increase liberty before
secession that will make us look more libertarian.
There are some things we won’t be able to change until after secession… but many states are
currently doing it anyway, and it’s making the federal government look ridiculous. On the other
hand, some states want to be able to do things that the federal government encroaches on, or
at least used to. Some examples:

I noted that more than half the states still have statutes that bar same-sex marriages. It is the
federal government that is mandating them.
The federal government had made abortions legal until they overturned Roe v. Wade… and the
reaction to that overturn was swift.
Even though at the federal level the drug war is still in force, most states now have legalized or
at least decriminalized marijuana use.
Discussions in the legislature about requiring women to cover their breasts in public were stopped
short by the idea that it would constitute a violation of the federal laws requiring treating men and
women the same. Later it was determined that that is not a great fear, but the women in NH still
demanded the right to go top-free. Interestingly, in White Mountains National Forest, women are
still required to cover their breasts, nudity is forbidden, even though it still happens. You have to
go out of the forest before women are legally allowed to expose their breasts.
etc. etc.

Just as some have started the conversation about secession, I’m trying to start conversations
about all the things that states have a say in at the state level. These can be implemented prior
to secession.
One thing I would like to see is things like marriage registration take place for those who want
it, but that would follow the dictates of the persons own religious, spiritual, and personal beliefs.
Something similar could be done with driver licenses. Etc.

Okay, I see where you are coming from, and as a preparedness enthusiast I understand preparing for the day.

I just don’t know where to start. It’s rather overwhelming to be honest. I think maybe we need to start with principles. Every answer to every question is “liberty”. Every response against liberty is “slavery”. Many things that people are conditioned to respond to need to seen through the lens of truth, but with compassion.

When we speak of “age of consent”, we need to place it in historical prospective. If some 3,000 years ago in Rome, a seven year old could be charged and convicted of a capital offense based on the simple idea that by age seven you knew murdering someone was wrong, even if you couldn’t understand why. Of course, this is barring mental defect.

The history of “age of consent” is well known and often it is spun as a sick and dark history, when viewed with a modern lens. Of course in modern times a 16 year old of today is treated the way a 10 year old of in the past. However, many states allow a 16 year old to emancipate from their parents. Many parents will disagree with such an idea as an emancipated 10 year old, even though in the past a 10 year old would be placed with a master tradesman to learn a trade.

We find ourselves looking at our current age with the idea that children are children till they are 17, even when such a “child” of the past would be a master of their trade craft. It’s rather sick that many people view “children” incapable of making rational decisions, mostly because of the parent has failed to raise the child with the understanding of responsibility and has ill prepared their child with the realities of the real world.

This “age of consent” issue is one based on rights. If you aren’t of the age of consent then your rights are being violated, if you can consent. If you feel that there needs to be an “age of consent” then I feel you also believe in slavery.

Cyberdoo, I know your frustration with not knowing where to start…
Mark_FTL has been talking about being prepared, as have I, for a while,
Mark for longer than me. My first posts after my Introduce Yourself posts
was becaue of my frustration with the way the CACR 32 hearing proved
that most of the secessionists who spoke at that hearing were not prepared
to adequately respond to the accusations and questions of some of the
statists, and indeed the committee itself presented.
Age of consent is used for sex, age of majority is used for the point at
which a person is legally allowed to take the responsibilities, and enjoy
the privileges,of, adulthood.
As has been pointed out, it is the system that is at fault. El_Stone was
quite right in his short post. It was right on target. The only question is
“How can we go about alleviating the impact of legacy systs”.
Yes, there are many laws that are meant to do good things, to protect
people from abuses… but they instead abuse the innocent by taking
away the experiences needed to make decisions later.

Laws do not stop anything from happening, and they unduly burden
both individuals and society.

This is true in the area of alcohol, sex, driving, and a broad range
of other activities. We teach our kids abstinence instead of experience.
We stifle curiosity by making it undesirable. “Don’t ask questions, just
do as your told!” THAT is abuse of our humanity.

When we speak of incest we can mean two different things - incest in marriage, or sexual incest.
Incest in marriage usually includes a relationship of consanguinity or of affinity. The latter is a legal relationship, such as including in-laws, relationship by adoption, of the “whole or half blood” etc.

With this in mind, prohibited marriages in the states of the US always include marriage with an ancestor or descendant, sibling, aunt/uncle, and nephew/niece.
In addition, 25 of the states prohibit marriage of first cousins.
One state prohibits marriage with great aunts/uncles.

It is not always the same affinity relationships that are prohibited.
New Hampshire prohibits marriage between

“brother’s son, brother’s daughter, sister’s son, sister’s daughter”, i.e., first cousins, but does not seem to have any relationships by affinity prohibited.

For increasing liberty in NH in this matter, we need only remove the prohibition on first cousins marrying.

The following file contains the raw data used for this analysis.
Consanguinity of marriage.odt (33.2 KB)

I would like to bring up several relevant points at this time.

  1. I am not a lawyer…nor a legal scholar at all. I am simply
    looking at state codes in areas that every state have some
    kind of legal statements, and comparing them.
  2. The conclusions that I come to are not to be considered
    recommendations, but rather the minimum changes that
    must be made to make NH the most libertarian state.
  3. With regard to why they are here in NHExit… in NH,
    we are not just secessionist, like Texas and California…
    they want divorce from Washington, to be able to make
    their own decisions, keep money in their states, etc.
    In NH, we are also trying to find “liberty in our lifetime”,
    and that makes a difference in how we might change
    our laws. Texas and California might actually become
    more statist, whereas NH is moving toward less
    statism. This is a huge difference.

The sections of legal codes that speak to marriage incest most often include the same degrees of consanguinity for sexual incest. But not always. Usually the sections on marriage are found outside the criminal codes, but occasionally as a sub-part of the criminal codes.
However, where there are differences, they can be dramatic.
For example, only eight states have laws that prohibit sex between consenting adults who are first cousins. Only 38 prohibit sex between consenting adults who are the nieces/nephews of the actor, and 42 prohibit sex between the actor and uncles/aunts.
All but one of the states do prohibit sex between consenting adults who are related linealy (ancestor or descendant) or who are siblings.
One state, Ohio has no prohibitions on sex between adult family members.
When sexual relationships exist within a family, it is always for consenting adults. Otherwise, sections of the codes must be consulted for the usual laws concerning sex with minors. Even if age of consent is less than age of majority, within families, the law prohibits sex with anyone who is not an adult.
In order for NH to match the most liberal of the states, it would have to match Ohio, which has repealed its statute on sex between family members. The next most liberated states prohibit only ancestors/descendants and siblings in the statutes.

The file below contains the raw data from which I have drawn these conclusions.
Sexual incest.odt (50.5 KB)
Also, see the following for some interesting information.

The age of majority should be 30 not 16 because what the fuck does anyone know at 16? The culture is too immature and generally is unwilling/unable to take care of themselves. The age of marriage requires a level of maturity that the culture cannot support. If you compare the work ethic and accomplishment of “minors” 100 years ago is night and day. When adults can do what 16-18 year-olds could do years ago then I would consider lowering that age. The Pathway to Freedom is RESPONSIBILITY.

Let me state again that I am not making recommendations for what should, only making a comparative study of the law in the 50 states.
I’m personally in favor of not having an age of majority based on calendar age. When a person can act responsibly in a particular issue, that is to say, if the parties for a particular exchange are all happy with the ability of a person to fulfill the obligations incurred, then that’s okay with me.
My grandfather, at one time one of the attorneys general for the state of Ohio, and certified to argue before the US supreme court, used to say that a good deal is one that all parties are happy with.

I’m sorry, I simply must disagree with you. To your question of what does a 16 year old know? All 16 year olds are not the same. Many 16 year olds I know of know far more than many 30 year olds. For example, many know what their rights are, many know the difference between lawful and legal, many know they have the right to not answer questions put to them by so-called authorities, and they know how to challenge those authorities when their rights are being trampled. Of course, many younger ones I know also know many of these things too, but I admit that they are more of the exception to the rule.

You would have these “adults” be treated as children, deprived of their human rights, based on a minority of similarly aged children. Why stop at 30? Why not 60? Surely, a 60 year old has more knowledge and experience, twice that of a 30 year old, perhaps they should be the only ones allowed to exercise their human rights?

Regardless of the number attached to the age of majority, it’s ridiculous idea. Some how the day before you reach the age of majority you lack the knowledge and understanding of life, but 24 hours later you magically now have the knowledge and understanding of life.

Simply put, such arbitrary notions, such as age, number of years of study, or parental opinion, are completely arbitrary and should not be used as a metric in determining if any specific human being has the right to exercise their liberty and rights.

1 Like

I sure would like to agree with you, but the facts just don’t support your sentiment. I agree with you with making the age of Majority 60… LOL When I say what one knows I’m really not talking about head knowledge. I am talking about applied knowledge that comes with responsibility. And if you look at the culture you can clearly see the amount of entitlement destroying the economy. And yes we know, that government and central banking are behind this current destruction, And I agree with your sentiment about age being a bad level of one’s participation in a representative form of government. But History has shown that when life was rougher it was around 16 years of age of one being able to take care of one’s self. Even now it is noted that at 16 one can drive and one should be able to choose to continue to be in school or join the work force.

If we take nature’s lead to determine maturity then when one has the ability to have children, then one should be able to self-determine and contract. I do believe if you give kids responsibility, they DO rise up.

My sentiment does not really have to do with the age one has obtained Natural Right. I was just suggesting RESPONSIBILITY is the place when one can truly realize one’s RIGHTS.

When you see governments always offering security/safety in exchange for one’s Freedom, they are the ones to assuming the responsibility of how one lives. This has shown to be a disaster.

So I would suggest that if one at 16 says leave me alone and rejects the “care and/or security” of their parents, others or their government then all of the Privileges and Benefits of maturation should be theirs.

That would truly be a Brave New World.

1 Like

It might interest you to know that age of majority has had a downward trend.
In many states it used to be 21, but has been changed more recently to 18.
In NH, the legal age to marry was 16 not too long ago… it was only recently
changed to 18. I’m guessing that this had to do with the fact that age of
majority is 18, and marriage as defined is a civil “contract”.
It is so described in almost every state, although there are alternatives,
such as compact marriages, and civil unions, that are described differently.
In many states the minimum age for marriage is 18, except that the exception
has been made for those who are 16 or 17 with consent of parent/guardian
and a judge.
I think this is a good indication that marriage is legally considered to be an
age of majority question, but psychologically and socially considered to be
an age of consent question… the legal age of consent to sex is overwhelmingly
considered to be 16… and marriage is historically tied to procreation and care
of children.
These are connections that in the future I hope to present in a more organized

With liberty come responsibility. The problem we face today is one of a social nature. Many children are held as children by lawfare, the use of rules having the effect of law, to deprive those with the capacity of self determination and ability of self determination of their Natural Rights, which itself is a Crime.

While I tend to agree with your opinion on face value that many children lack the ability of self determination, rules that have the effect of law, should not bind those who have both ability and capacity of self determination. However, the Law deals with facts, not opinions. Opinions should never be substituted for facts, nor confused as such.

Currently, in many jurisdictions everyone, regardless of age, ability, or capacity is assumed as if they have not reached age of majority, lack the capacity of self determination, and ability of self determination. It is only through ability to prove themselves of their ability are they then treated as adults.

If we are going to codify under statute, which I am not one to use violence or the threat of violence against my fellow human beings, but for the sake of discussion, I would codify actions, not arbitrary opinions. Such actions include, but not limited to, the ability to provide for themselves of food and water, of shelter, and of safety and security.