Full Version: The Free State Project
This group has been around for awhile now, but I love visiting their site and find what they are doing to be so intriguing. The Free State Project is a group of libertarian minded individuals who have chosen a state(New Hampshire) to relocate to. They are trying to recruit 20,000 or more people to move there so they can control local and state government and proceed to chip away at government intrusion and to create a free-market, libertarian utopia.
From their website:
Questions for debate:
1.)Would you move your family to a swing-state if your political party wanted you to? Why or why not?
2.)Do you see this activity by the FSP to be a legitimate political plan or is it a tad bit sinister?
3.)What will ultimately come about? Will they get the state that they want?
4.)If they do get New Hampshire and proceed to ignore federal laws-then what?
From their website:
QUOTE
The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire. We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant folks from all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors who agree to the political philosophy expressed in our Statement of Intent, that government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.
When you sign our Statement of Intent, you signal your commitment to move to the chosen free state, New Hampshire, within five years of obtaining 19,999 other people who commit to move. The more signatures we get, the more secure people can be in their decision to move, because they know that many other people will also be moving— enough to make a real difference! You don't have to wait until we have 20,000 signatures to move, of course, but that option is there to let you be more secure in your decision.
What the Free State Project is not... We are not a political action organization. We are not tied to any political party or organization; we do not run candidates for election, we do not financially support or endorse candidates, and we do not oppose or endorse legislation. All these things will be done by friendly organizations with which many Free Staters are involved.
When you sign our Statement of Intent, you signal your commitment to move to the chosen free state, New Hampshire, within five years of obtaining 19,999 other people who commit to move. The more signatures we get, the more secure people can be in their decision to move, because they know that many other people will also be moving— enough to make a real difference! You don't have to wait until we have 20,000 signatures to move, of course, but that option is there to let you be more secure in your decision.
What the Free State Project is not... We are not a political action organization. We are not tied to any political party or organization; we do not run candidates for election, we do not financially support or endorse candidates, and we do not oppose or endorse legislation. All these things will be done by friendly organizations with which many Free Staters are involved.
Questions for debate:
1.)Would you move your family to a swing-state if your political party wanted you to? Why or why not?
2.)Do you see this activity by the FSP to be a legitimate political plan or is it a tad bit sinister?
3.)What will ultimately come about? Will they get the state that they want?
4.)If they do get New Hampshire and proceed to ignore federal laws-then what?
1. No. I live in the most conservative corner of one of the most conservative areas of the country. I live here for reasons other than politics. If a Green Utopia suddenly bloomed into life somewhere in the United States (maybe in the Pacific Northwest) I still think that it would take some effort for me to move.
2. It's not sinister at all, as far as I can see. What is sinister are the pie-in-the-sky plans that some people have made to make Idaho an "all-white" state or to make South Carolina a state with a Fundamentalist Christian government. These plans have come to nothing, of course. I suspect the FSP will also come to nothing, but I wouldn't oppose it. It would be interesting to see a genuinely Libertarian state government as a living experiment.
3. Probably not much, really. New Hampshire -- the "Live Free or Die" state -- is probably already about as Libertarian as it is going to get. (Just as Idaho is about as white as it is going to get, and South Carolina is about as Fundamentalist as it is going to get, and so on.)
4. Assuming that the Libertarian State of New Hampshire really did decide to ignore federal laws, well, they would be in trouble. It doesn't have to lead to a violent confrontation; it could start off as the Feds holding back all federal funds. If New Hampshire is OK with that, then they might reach a situation where they have withdrawn from the union, de facto if not de jure. I don't think there is any chance that this could happen.
2. It's not sinister at all, as far as I can see. What is sinister are the pie-in-the-sky plans that some people have made to make Idaho an "all-white" state or to make South Carolina a state with a Fundamentalist Christian government. These plans have come to nothing, of course. I suspect the FSP will also come to nothing, but I wouldn't oppose it. It would be interesting to see a genuinely Libertarian state government as a living experiment.
3. Probably not much, really. New Hampshire -- the "Live Free or Die" state -- is probably already about as Libertarian as it is going to get. (Just as Idaho is about as white as it is going to get, and South Carolina is about as Fundamentalist as it is going to get, and so on.)
4. Assuming that the Libertarian State of New Hampshire really did decide to ignore federal laws, well, they would be in trouble. It doesn't have to lead to a violent confrontation; it could start off as the Feds holding back all federal funds. If New Hampshire is OK with that, then they might reach a situation where they have withdrawn from the union, de facto if not de jure. I don't think there is any chance that this could happen.
1.)Would you move your family to a swing-state if your political party wanted you to? Why or why not?
No. Where to live is a decision that should be based on your own life decisions. I would move for two reasons - work and weather. I'm employed and I already live in a weather utopia. If I were to move for political reasons, it would most likely be out of the country. I'm a selfish person that way.
2.)Do you see this activity by the FSP to be a legitimate political plan or is it a tad bit sinister?
Not sinister, really. Maybe a tad idealistic to actually work. Population shifts are usually based on economics, so I'd be interested to follow this long-term. In a way, many states have self-selected this way, as more conservative people stay put and less conservative people move to the coasts [/gross generalization].
3.)What will ultimately come about? Will they get the state that they want?
Probably not. I would expect that ultimately, some people would look around and say to themselves, Hey, wait a second, I'm living in New Hampshire!?
No, seriously, the Religious Right has been doing this for years, except they had the sense to do it at the Washington level -- and now they are running the country.
4.)If they do get New Hampshire and proceed to ignore federal laws-then what?
Lawsuits.
No. Where to live is a decision that should be based on your own life decisions. I would move for two reasons - work and weather. I'm employed and I already live in a weather utopia. If I were to move for political reasons, it would most likely be out of the country. I'm a selfish person that way.
2.)Do you see this activity by the FSP to be a legitimate political plan or is it a tad bit sinister?
Not sinister, really. Maybe a tad idealistic to actually work. Population shifts are usually based on economics, so I'd be interested to follow this long-term. In a way, many states have self-selected this way, as more conservative people stay put and less conservative people move to the coasts [/gross generalization].
3.)What will ultimately come about? Will they get the state that they want?
Probably not. I would expect that ultimately, some people would look around and say to themselves, Hey, wait a second, I'm living in New Hampshire!?
No, seriously, the Religious Right has been doing this for years, except they had the sense to do it at the Washington level -- and now they are running the country.4.)If they do get New Hampshire and proceed to ignore federal laws-then what?
Lawsuits.
QUOTE
1. No. I live in the most conservative corner of one of the most conservative areas of the country. I live here for reasons other than politics. If a Green Utopia suddenly bloomed into life somewhere in the United States (maybe in the Pacific Northwest) I still think that it would take some effort for me to move.
Excellent point, I guess that I'm amazed at how someone would use politics as the reason for relocating anywhere. I live in a fairly republican state, though politics isn't because I choose to live where I currently do. For my family, the number one over riding consideration is nearness to family.
QUOTE
4. Assuming that the Libertarian State of New Hampshire really did decide to ignore federal laws, well, they would be in trouble. It doesn't have to lead to a violent confrontation; it could start off as the Feds holding back all federal funds. If New Hampshire is OK with that, then they might reach a situation where they have withdrawn from the union, de facto if not de jure. I don't think there is any chance that this could happen.
I see the problem as this-they are unhappy participating in the political process as it is. So what are they doing?, they are trying to stack the deck so to speak so as to gain an advantage that normaly no one else has ever taken advantage of. And when the "real" citizens sue them, will they obey what the federal courts say then? What will they do?, secede?, declare independence?
While we all have our ideals, they do need to shelved when our fellow citizens choose leaders not of our liking. I hope they don't succeed in this endeavor, but I hope that at the time in the future shyould they do, that the majority of citizens will back any efforts to get them to mind their Uncle Sam. 
QUOTE
I see the problem as this-they are unhappy participating in the political process as it is. So what are they doing?, they are trying to stack the deck so to speak so as to gain an advantage that normaly no one else has ever taken advantage of. And when the "real" citizens sue them, will they obey what the federal courts say then? What will they do?, secede?, declare independence? blink.gif wacko.gif While we all have our ideals, they do need to shelved when our fellow citizens choose leaders not of our liking. I hope they don't succeed in this endeavor, but I hope that at the time in the future shyould they do, that the majority of citizens will back any efforts to get them to mind their Uncle Sam.
problem is NB, if they succeed and get enough people to movge there--then they can indeed vote what they want into existence--It was after all how the country was founded.
Independent states joined together voluntarily!
So they would not have to follow Washington's mandates and demands. The best DC could do is threaten money that is sent to the state--highways and all that other garbage
Yet the whole goal of the project is to get away from that stuff anyways.
New Hampshire was chosen deliberately anyways, if there is any state suuited to libertarian ideas, it is a state which proudly proclaims "Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death"
I think were they to get enough people together to pull it off that many other states would also watch very intently to see if they could pull it off. Were the Free State Project to gather enough people and begin to restore the NH government to what they believe it should be i would assume out of simple necessity they would be sure to illustrate to the rest of the state why it will work better for them. These days Nebraska I think its a message that would not be too difficult to get across.
I'm mention it to the wife occasionally. New Hampshire is gorgeous.
1.)Would you move your family to a swing-state if your political party wanted you to? Why or why not?
Not for that alone, and certainly not just on the hope of making something idealistic work. But if it got going successfully, I might jump on the bandwagon.
2.)Do you see this activity by the FSP to be a legitimate political plan or is it a tad bit sinister?
Totally legit. There's nothing at all wrong with moving someplace and voting, especially if all you want to impose if your side wins is freedom.
3.)What will ultimately come about? Will they get the state that they want?
Too early to say. It's a plausible plan and it could work, but there's also a lot that could go wrong. I'd give it maybe 50/50.
4.)If they do get New Hampshire and proceed to ignore federal laws-then what?
Some you can't ignore, or the feds will come in and enforce them for you. Drug laws for example. You can legalize them on the state level, but the FBI and DEA will still bust people for them and still prosecute them federally. Others you legally can ignore if you aren't too addicted to the funding, and those kind... well, IMHO, a lot of those ought to be ignored, and maybe ridiculed too. If that attitude spread, I think it'd be a good thing. Maybe the feds would stop using financial blackmail if it were no longer effective.
Not for that alone, and certainly not just on the hope of making something idealistic work. But if it got going successfully, I might jump on the bandwagon.
2.)Do you see this activity by the FSP to be a legitimate political plan or is it a tad bit sinister?
Totally legit. There's nothing at all wrong with moving someplace and voting, especially if all you want to impose if your side wins is freedom.
3.)What will ultimately come about? Will they get the state that they want?
Too early to say. It's a plausible plan and it could work, but there's also a lot that could go wrong. I'd give it maybe 50/50.
4.)If they do get New Hampshire and proceed to ignore federal laws-then what?
Some you can't ignore, or the feds will come in and enforce them for you. Drug laws for example. You can legalize them on the state level, but the FBI and DEA will still bust people for them and still prosecute them federally. Others you legally can ignore if you aren't too addicted to the funding, and those kind... well, IMHO, a lot of those ought to be ignored, and maybe ridiculed too. If that attitude spread, I think it'd be a good thing. Maybe the feds would stop using financial blackmail if it were no longer effective.
QUOTE(christopher @ Dec 20 2005, 05:56 PM)
Independent states joined together voluntarily!
So they would not have to follow Washington's mandates and demands. The best DC could do is threaten money that is sent to the state--highways and all that other garbage
So they would not have to follow Washington's mandates and demands. The best DC could do is threaten money that is sent to the state--highways and all that other garbage
They may have joined voluntarily, but they can not vote to leave. We already decided that in oh say 1865 at a place called Appomattox Court House. The Federal government would start with money, but they would send troops to restore the federal constitution.
1.)Would you move your family to a swing-state if your political party wanted you to? Why or why not? Not a chance! I do not follow the dictates of anybody else. Too independent.
2.)Do you see this activity by the FSP to be a legitimate political plan or is it a tad bit sinister? Nope, I do think that they may be on to something and if they succeed them may create a state government worth having. I wish them the best, but Ohio is too cold for me, New Hampshire would border on cruel and unusual punishment.
3.)What will ultimately come about? Will they get the state that they want? I doubt it. I hope that they do pull it off, but very unlikely.
4.)If they do get New Hampshire and proceed to ignore federal laws-then what? Federal occupation and reconstruction. We did it before and will do it again.
QUOTE
They may have joined voluntarily, but they can not vote to leave. We already decided that in oh say 1865 at a place called Appomattox Court House. The Federal government would start with money, but they would send troops to restore the federal constitution.
Federal occupation and reconstruction. We did it before and will do it again.
Federal occupation and reconstruction. We did it before and will do it again.
Even in the Articles of Confederation, the words "perpetual union" are used quite frequently To me, the word *perpetual* does not imply that one can wiggle out of the "firm league of friendship" any time they so desire.
1.)Would you move your family to a swing-state if your political party wanted you to? Why or why not?
I would not change my breakfast habits for a political party, much less move to another state. However, if the FSP does infiltrate a state and does live up to libertarian ideals...AND said state is one of the few I am considering to retire in, then the FSP may play a weighing factor.
2.)Do you see this activity by the FSP to be a legitimate political plan or is it a tad bit sinister?
I don't view it as sinister at all. Many people are simply tired of the Red v. Blue political warfare. Both teams are hypocritical, have sold their souls to special interests, stray from their purported platforms, and the middle class gets shafted by both.
People will often be drawn to change and novel ideas, and the decentralist vision of Jason Sorens has it's merits, particularly to libertarian minded people.
Any sinister notions about the FSP are promulgated by those who fear it's success....those who might lose power and influence.......Republicans, Democrats and Victicrats.
3.)What will ultimately come about? Will they get the state that they want?
I don't think the plan will come to fruition. New Hampshire is probably the best choice for the project, and the plan is sound enough to possibly work, but I don't think enough people will actually pick up and move, when there are too many variables, and no guarantee for success. Reason Magazine has a pretty good article on the effort, and the history of similar failed movements:
Reason
4.)If they do get New Hampshire and proceed to ignore federal laws-then what?
If they succeed, it will force a judicial showdown between states rights and federal control, something that has been needed for some time now. I don't view the aims of the FSP as being militantly opposed to the federal government, but rather wishing to force legal change legislatively.
I would not change my breakfast habits for a political party, much less move to another state. However, if the FSP does infiltrate a state and does live up to libertarian ideals...AND said state is one of the few I am considering to retire in, then the FSP may play a weighing factor.
2.)Do you see this activity by the FSP to be a legitimate political plan or is it a tad bit sinister?
I don't view it as sinister at all. Many people are simply tired of the Red v. Blue political warfare. Both teams are hypocritical, have sold their souls to special interests, stray from their purported platforms, and the middle class gets shafted by both.
People will often be drawn to change and novel ideas, and the decentralist vision of Jason Sorens has it's merits, particularly to libertarian minded people.
Any sinister notions about the FSP are promulgated by those who fear it's success....those who might lose power and influence.......Republicans, Democrats and Victicrats.
3.)What will ultimately come about? Will they get the state that they want?
I don't think the plan will come to fruition. New Hampshire is probably the best choice for the project, and the plan is sound enough to possibly work, but I don't think enough people will actually pick up and move, when there are too many variables, and no guarantee for success. Reason Magazine has a pretty good article on the effort, and the history of similar failed movements:
QUOTE
The major problem with the notion that the FSP will bring liberty in our times to New Hampshire is that many of America’s tyrannical impositions, from the most evil to the most petty, come from the federal level. And the FSP is very vocally not a secessionist movement.
Reason
4.)If they do get New Hampshire and proceed to ignore federal laws-then what?
If they succeed, it will force a judicial showdown between states rights and federal control, something that has been needed for some time now. I don't view the aims of the FSP as being militantly opposed to the federal government, but rather wishing to force legal change legislatively.
1.)Would you move your family to a swing-state if your political party wanted you to? Why or why not?
Nope, looks backwards to me. Upon moving into an area, one brings political ideas. If those ideas appeal to enough people, then the politics change. Democracy works on the foundations of argumentation, debate and persuasion. Stacking the ballot box with predefined ideologues strikes me as a non-military invasion, where a bunch of out-of-state bullies take over.
Hey, it happened here when Texas and California invaded Colorado. The politics went way over to the starboard side, but now the ship's getting its keel again. I suppose recession, drought, wildfire and heavy winter snows have sent people packing for milder climes and richer digs. Or, as I suspect might be true, the ideas brought into this state from afar have run their courses. Time for some new ideas that are actually old, predating the invasion, like take care of the environment and run the state with some common sense instead of voodoo economics.
Speaking of economics, these Libs must be filthy rich. NH isn't an easy state to just move into and expect things to happen, like employment.
2.)Do you see this activity by the FSP to be a legitimate political plan or is it a tad bit sinister?
If I were a long-term NH resident, I'd not want the invasion to happen just because I'd be real Yankee (hard-headed) about it. I doubt it will, because I also doubt that the Libs are wealthy enough to just pick up and relocate, depending on investment income to carry them through. It's amazing how suddenly real estate inflates with high demand. I'd be all for the influx of new buyers if I were a long-term NH resident with my eye on Midwestern retirement property.
So primarily, sinister. Depending on what the plans are, maybe a windfall.
3.)What will ultimately come about? Will they get the state that they want?
It'd be interesting to see, from afar that is. A political ant farm! Cool.
4.)If they do get New Hampshire and proceed to ignore federal laws-then what?
Good question, and who knows until it happens. This is why I'd like to see it in NH if not Colorado. Good, bad or indifferent, looks like a real opportunity to challenge the status quo, possibly changing the relationship between the feds and the states.
I bet NH is targeted due to the presidential primaries. Eh, they will switch to some other state if the Libs take over. How about Colorado? We could use the business.
Nope, looks backwards to me. Upon moving into an area, one brings political ideas. If those ideas appeal to enough people, then the politics change. Democracy works on the foundations of argumentation, debate and persuasion. Stacking the ballot box with predefined ideologues strikes me as a non-military invasion, where a bunch of out-of-state bullies take over.
Hey, it happened here when Texas and California invaded Colorado. The politics went way over to the starboard side, but now the ship's getting its keel again. I suppose recession, drought, wildfire and heavy winter snows have sent people packing for milder climes and richer digs. Or, as I suspect might be true, the ideas brought into this state from afar have run their courses. Time for some new ideas that are actually old, predating the invasion, like take care of the environment and run the state with some common sense instead of voodoo economics.
Speaking of economics, these Libs must be filthy rich. NH isn't an easy state to just move into and expect things to happen, like employment.
2.)Do you see this activity by the FSP to be a legitimate political plan or is it a tad bit sinister?
If I were a long-term NH resident, I'd not want the invasion to happen just because I'd be real Yankee (hard-headed) about it. I doubt it will, because I also doubt that the Libs are wealthy enough to just pick up and relocate, depending on investment income to carry them through. It's amazing how suddenly real estate inflates with high demand. I'd be all for the influx of new buyers if I were a long-term NH resident with my eye on Midwestern retirement property.
So primarily, sinister. Depending on what the plans are, maybe a windfall.
3.)What will ultimately come about? Will they get the state that they want?
It'd be interesting to see, from afar that is. A political ant farm! Cool.
4.)If they do get New Hampshire and proceed to ignore federal laws-then what?
Good question, and who knows until it happens. This is why I'd like to see it in NH if not Colorado. Good, bad or indifferent, looks like a real opportunity to challenge the status quo, possibly changing the relationship between the feds and the states.
I bet NH is targeted due to the presidential primaries. Eh, they will switch to some other state if the Libs take over. How about Colorado? We could use the business.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Dec 31 2005, 01:58 PM)
Nope, looks backwards to me. Upon moving into an area, one brings political ideas. If those ideas appeal to enough people, then the politics change. Democracy works on the foundations of argumentation, debate and persuasion. Stacking the ballot box with predefined ideologues strikes me as a non-military invasion, where a bunch of out-of-state bullies take over.
But would your point of view change if the political idealogy were say, liberal? If Colorado became the focus of a Liberal Utopia Project, or some such idea? Each of the 50 states currently have your mix of argumentation, debate and persuasion......and results in simply more of the same infighting that we gripe and moan about here on
. Quite possibly the impetus for a project like this comes from the same line of thought as yours: Time for some new ideas that are actually old, predating the invasion, like take care of the environment and run the state with some common sense instead of voodoo economics.
Every state in the union is currently under the weight of politics as usual, why not try something new?
QUOTE
I bet NH is targeted due to the presidential primaries.
According to Jason Sorens and others affiliated with the FSP, libertarians voted from a short list of states; Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.
New Hampshire was chosen primarily because of its low population and pre-existing libertarian leanings. I can't fathom how the presidential primary was a consideration.
With the coming shift away from the northeast I don't see the NH Primary as a good reason to choose the state. New Hampshire has a reputation for libertarian minded residents. Vermont is also very close but runs along the lines of more liberal libertarianism--yet the state allows you to carry firearms easily and no one there ever seems to notice it.
I think it is a great idea to have states once again determine their way free of DC influence. Quite simply it comes to this--what concerns Arizona is not the same as what concerns Maine. Make your own comparison. Even Lincoln saw the danger of the end of the civil war in the way it would allow wealth to gain influence beyond the means of regular citizens.
The only way to break the influence of special interests is to remove their ability to sway the whole nation from a single location.
Sadly because one cannot rightfully remove the taint of slavery from the South--which stands as the poster child of States Right's
, the greater power of the State vs. the Fed gets a bad rep.
I would love to see the various models of political thought given a chance to have the freedom to go their own way and do not see it as a harmful action to America.
We are at our strongest when we willingly come together--not when forced by the commands of a very few in DC.
and honestly I think allowing this would finally show who is right about their politics. remove the Fed and I think you would see some Red states become a lot less well of when they no longer get Fed money to support their industries--and some blue states when forced to cover their own bills alone would probably start demasnding a lot more from those who want assistance.
I am well aware of that Loreng. I place that along wth having the election of Senators made popular 2 of the 4 greatest mistakes this country ever made politically.
Like many things debated in this country I think that one should again become an issue. If you have to force a state to remain loyal by threat of violence what good is their inclusion. It will only become a cancer that slowly spreads --hence the Red state Blue state divide.
I think it is a great idea to have states once again determine their way free of DC influence. Quite simply it comes to this--what concerns Arizona is not the same as what concerns Maine. Make your own comparison. Even Lincoln saw the danger of the end of the civil war in the way it would allow wealth to gain influence beyond the means of regular citizens.
The only way to break the influence of special interests is to remove their ability to sway the whole nation from a single location.
Sadly because one cannot rightfully remove the taint of slavery from the South--which stands as the poster child of States Right's
, the greater power of the State vs. the Fed gets a bad rep.I would love to see the various models of political thought given a chance to have the freedom to go their own way and do not see it as a harmful action to America.
We are at our strongest when we willingly come together--not when forced by the commands of a very few in DC.
and honestly I think allowing this would finally show who is right about their politics. remove the Fed and I think you would see some Red states become a lot less well of when they no longer get Fed money to support their industries--and some blue states when forced to cover their own bills alone would probably start demasnding a lot more from those who want assistance.
QUOTE
They may have joined voluntarily, but they can not vote to leave. We already decided that in oh say 1865 at a place called Appomattox Court House. The Federal government would start with money, but they would send troops to restore the federal constitution.
I am well aware of that Loreng. I place that along wth having the election of Senators made popular 2 of the 4 greatest mistakes this country ever made politically.
Like many things debated in this country I think that one should again become an issue. If you have to force a state to remain loyal by threat of violence what good is their inclusion. It will only become a cancer that slowly spreads --hence the Red state Blue state divide.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.