What if leaving the income tax system wasn’t a billionaire flex—but a blueprint for regular people?
Join Carla Gericke and Steve Villee for a deep dive into the Club 75 Alliance Manifesto and a bold strategy for New Hampshire independence. We unpack positive/negative rights, sovereign territories, and what it really means to “vote with your feet.”
Freedom isn’t theoretical. It’s geographic.
It starts here. In New Hampshire.
If you’ve ever wondered whether freedom is something you can design—not just debate—this conversation is for you. Step one: Move to the Free State!
Buy Steve’s book now at Club 75 Alliance…
BONUS CONTENT FROM GROK:
summarize the independence movement in New Hampshire, including legislation proposed
The New Hampshire independence movement, commonly known as NHEXIT (New Hampshire Exit), is an active, peaceful campaign advocating for the state to become a sovereign, independent nation through democratic and legal means. It emphasizes self-determination, ending federal overreach (including unelected bureaucracy, excessive taxation, and debt burdens), restoring full local control over laws and destiny, and preserving New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” heritage of liberty, prosperity, and self-governance.
The movement builds on decades of libertarian activism in the state, particularly through the Free State Project (FSP)—founded in 2001 to attract liberty-minded individuals to New Hampshire. The FSP has successfully relocated thousands (over 6,000 movers as of recent counts), influenced pro-liberty policies (e.g., on taxes, gun rights, and limited government), and created a vibrant community of activists, entrepreneurs, and volunteers. As Chair of the Free State Project board and President Emeritus, Carla Gericke plays a central leadership role in advancing freedom in NH through the FSP, while also leading NHEXIT Now (launched in July 2024) as its key figure and organizer.
NHEXIT Now explicitly campaigns for independence, arguing that New Hampshire’s future should be determined by its people—not distant federal interests. Key points from the movement include:
- Laws made solely within NH borders.
- An end to funds siphoned to Washington.
- Greater economic freedom, environmental stewardship, and community empowerment.
- Achieving this via a direct vote/referendum by NH residents—the only requirement highlighted.
The movement frames NHEXIT as a process leading to full independence, not an immediate break, and stresses peaceful, democratic pursuit.
Legislative Efforts
Pro-independence or secession-related proposals have appeared sporadically in the NH legislature, often introduced by libertarian-leaning representatives aligned with FSP values, but they have consistently faced strong opposition and failed to advance:
- Historical examples include CACR 32 (2022: proposed peaceful declaration of independence; defeated 323–13).
- CACR 20 and HB 1130 (2024: debt-triggered secession clause and study committee; rejected without debate).
- In the 2025–2026 session, HB 1441 was proposed to establish a commission studying the economic, legal, and sociological aspects of New Hampshire exerting sovereign rights/independence. It received a hearing (e.g., testimony in favor from Carla Gericke and others), but as of February 2026, no major progress or passage is reported—similar proposals continue to be defeated or stalled by wide margins due to constitutional concerns (e.g., U.S. precedents like Texas v. White barring unilateral secession), practicality, and mainstream legislative resistance.
No independence referendum has been placed before voters, and the idea remains outside mainstream NH politics, though it gains visibility through activism, events, social media (e.g., @nhexitnow), and ties to broader liberty efforts.
Overall, NHEXIT represents a dedicated push to normalize the conversation around self-governance and prepare for potential democratic expression of independence. It draws inspiration from historical shifts (like Brexit’s path from fringe to referendum), viewing today’s marginal status as a starting point that persistent organizing, crises, and public sentiment could transform. The Free State Project’s ongoing influence continues to foster a pro-liberty environment in NH, providing fertile ground for these ideas. If conditions align—federal dysfunction, economic pressures, or growing disillusionment—the movement’s advocates argue it could gain broader traction, proving that what starts as “fringe” can evolve into a serious debate or even majority will.
explain the process from “fringe/not mainstream” to it happening with 51.89% (really showing the ridiculousness of democracy, but that’s probably a different discussion)… my point is, what you call fringe today may be genius tomorrow
You’re spot on: what seems fringe or even fringe-radical today can shift dramatically into the mainstream—and even win a slim majority—under the right conditions. Brexit is a textbook case of exactly that process. The idea of the UK outright leaving the European Union (or its predecessor, the EEC/EC) was long viewed as eccentric, unthinkable, or confined to political outliers for decades after the UK joined in 1973.
Here’s how it evolved from a marginal notion to a 51.89% referendum victory in 2016, step by step. This wasn’t overnight; it built over roughly 25–30 years through persistent activism, media amplification, economic/political crises, and strategic political calculations.
Early Roots (1970s–1980s): Truly Fringe, Mostly Left-Leaning
- The 1975 referendum on staying in the EEC passed with 67% Remain—a decisive rejection of exit.
- Euroscepticism existed but was scattered: on the left (e.g., Labour figures like Hugh Gaitskell warning against losing sovereignty), and sporadically on the right.
- Exit was seen as economically suicidal or isolationist. Hardly anyone in mainstream politics seriously pushed full withdrawal.
1980s–1990s: Shift to the Right + “Eurosceptic” Label Emerges
- Margaret Thatcher’s famous 1988 Bruges speech criticized deeper integration and “Brussels” overreach—reviving right-wing Euroscepticism.
- The Maastricht Treaty (1992) and subsequent EU expansions deepened integration (euro, more powers to Brussels), fueling backlash.
- A small but vocal group of Conservative “Eurosceptics” (e.g., the “Maastricht Rebels”) rebelled, but exit remained fringe—most wanted reform, not departure.
- The UK Independence Party (UKIP) formed in 1993 explicitly to push for withdrawal. It was tiny, polling in single digits, dismissed as protest/nuisance.
2000s: Slow Build-Up, Media + Immigration as Fuel
- Tabloid press (e.g., The Sun, Daily Mail) ran endless “EU madness” stories (bent bananas, etc.), normalizing anti-EU sentiment.
- Eastern European enlargement (2004) brought immigration concerns; the 2008 financial crisis amplified feelings of elite detachment.
- UKIP under Nigel Farage began gaining traction in European Parliament elections (topping the poll in 2009 and 2014), but still no Westminster seats and low national polling.
2010s: Tipping Point – From Fringe to Political Pressure Cooker
- UKIP’s rise became existential for Conservatives: Farage peeled off Tory voters, especially in working-class areas hit by austerity and globalization.
- David Cameron (PM 2010–2016) faced constant internal rebellion from Eurosceptic MPs. To neutralize the threat and “shoot the UKIP fox,” he promised an in-out referendum if Conservatives won a majority in 2015 (Bloomberg speech, 2013).
- Conservatives won unexpectedly in 2015 → referendum locked in.
- Campaigning (2015–2016) amplified grievances: immigration (“Take Back Control”), sovereignty, anti-elite populism. Leave campaign (Farage, Vote Leave with Boris Johnson/Dominic Cummings) framed it emotionally, while Remain focused on economics/risks (often seen as Project Fear).
- Crises (Eurozone debt, migrant crisis 2015) made EU look dysfunctional.
June 23, 2016: The Narrow Win
- 51.89% Leave vs. 48.11% Remain—close, but decisive.
- Turnout high (~72%); Leave won in England/Wales outside London, Remain in Scotland/Northern Ireland.
- Cameron resigned immediately; chaos ensued.
Why the Shift Happened (Key Dynamics)
- Persistent advocacy — Decades of Eurosceptic voices (Thatcherites, UKIP, think tanks) kept the idea alive when it was mocked.
- Crisis moments — Economic pain, immigration spikes, perceived EU failures created openings.
- Media ecosystem — Tabloids and online echo chambers mainstreamed arguments.
- Electoral pressure — A fringe party (UKIP) forcing a major party to concede a vote to survive.
- Populist framing — “Us vs. Them” (people vs. elites/Brussels) resonated more than technocratic Remain arguments.
Your point nails it: today’s “fringe” (like explicit secession ideas in places like New Hampshire) often starts with dedicated activists building networks, leveraging grievances, winning small battles (policy shifts, public awareness), and waiting for cracks in the status quo. Brexit took ~25 years from Thatcher’s Bruges speech to the vote—longer if counting from UKIP’s founding. It required a perfect storm, but the idea normalized gradually until a referendum made it winnable.
Democracy’s “ridiculousness” (as you put it) is that majorities can form around once-unthinkable ideas when conditions align—sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. History is full of examples where the “genius tomorrow” label applies retroactively. If NHEXIT or similar movements gain similar momentum, the path could look eerily familiar. What specific parallels or next steps are you seeing in NH that remind you of this?