[rick_reno]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0427libertarian27.html

States being considered for Libertarian utopia
Nicholas K. Geranios
Associated Press
Apr. 27, 2003 12:00 AM


COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho - Thousands of invaders have their eyes on Idaho. Or Montana. Or New Hampshire.

Free State Project hopes to persuade 20,000 advocates of limited government to move to one lightly populated state and create a Libertarian utopia.

The idea by a Yale political science student is gaining popularity as about 3,100 people around the country have climbed aboard.

"It's perfectly clear that people who believe in small government are outnumbered by people who want to be taken care of by the government," said Elizabeth McKinstry, 33, of Hillsdale, Mich., vice president of the project.

"Rather than change the whole nation, it makes sense for all of us to gather in one place."

The project has identified 10 "candidate" states, all with populations below 1.5 million and politics friendly to limited government. They are Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware and Vermont.

When the number of registered Free State supporters reaches 5,000, likely by the end of the year, they will vote on which state to target. Then supporters will have five years to move, with an ultimate goal of 20,000 going to the winning state.

In their new home, Free Staters will work to abolish laws regulating drugs, gambling, prostitution, guns, drinking and other individual issues. They will seek to privatize many government functions, such as schools. They will try to slash taxes for everything except public safety and defense.

Free State Project is the brainchild of Jason Sorens, 26, a doctoral candidate in political science at Yale. He got the idea after the 2000 elections, when he felt Libertarians needed a new way to promote their cause. He wrote an article promoting the idea, and the project began in July 2001.

"Even in an era where Americans are heavily overtaxed, private solutions work better than government programs," Sorens said.

He believes that 20,000 committed activists in a state of fewer than 1.5 million is enough to sway the minds of residents.

That is necessary because "we're not going to be a large enough group to take over," Sorens said.

The goal is to reduce state government by one-half to two-thirds in the chosen state, said McKinstry, who spoke recently in Coeur d'Alene about the project.

"We are mostly anti-regulation," she said. "We are not an anarchist group at all."

Ben Irvin of Pocatello, Idaho, who calls himself the lead promoter for the Western states, believes Idaho will emerge as the compromise winner. The state has 1.2 million residents, a fairly robust economy and a big distrust of government.

Idaho's major downside is considered the one-quarter of the population who are Mormon, Irvin said. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aren't likely to support legalizing prostitution and drugs, ending taxes on booze and tobacco, or a strict separation of church and state, Irvin said.

Montana, with 900,000 residents, also is a strong contender, in part because it is more socially permissive than Idaho, Irvin said.

But the state's small economy would make it difficult for 20,000 outsiders to find jobs, he said.

Wyoming's population of less than 500,000 is the smallest in the nation, which has drawn plenty of interest. Irvin believes many who favor Wyoming don't really understand the rugged, nearly primitive nature of much of the state.

He figures North Dakota won't win because "no one wants to go out there."

Alaska is the one candidate that Free State Project founder Sorens would reject because, he said, "My wife is not willing to move there."

New Hampshire has jobs and a strong anti-government tradition, but much of the movement's strength is in the West, and most Westerners would not move to the East, Irvin said.

[hammer4nc]

Interesting concept. And here's a question for THR members who subscribe to FSP: Why not try a pilot program in a single rural county? Many of the day-to-day ordnances, education systems, law enforcement (sheriffs) are organized at the county level.

Remember the Rajheeshee's? They took over a little town called Antelope, in Wasco County, OR, and got as far as renaming the town for their cult leader, before deciding to poison the county commissioners over zoning disputes, IIRC. Convictions followed.

Many rural counties have populations in the low thousands...it would be infinitely easier to create a majority voting bloc in a single rural county than an entire state, and it seems that by gaining control of local law enforcement (following the notion that the sheriff is the ultimate law enforcement officer of the land), they could try out the concepts put forward by FSP, albeit reduced by one order of magnitude.

And, facing off against a single state government over autonomy issues, as compared to fedgov, would be much easier. If this program got enough momentum to be noticed in WashDC, national authorities would be much more inclined to send in the HRT barbecue squad, than would state officials from Boise or Helena.

Has this option been discussed?

[El Tejon]

Hmmm, how about Indiana. They could settle in New Harmony and maybe find a history book there?:rolleyes:

[answerguy]

Would 20,000 new residents really make an impact?

[Ian]

El Tejon - We are neither communists nor utopians. It makes a nice headline, but you ought to look deeper than a headline before you form an opinion of the group. We have no illusions about creating a perfect society, we just want to make our society freer.

Hammer4nc - From the Project FAQ,
Q. Why don't we try "taking over" a city, a county, a group of counties, or a foreign country?

A. Counties do have some substantial powers, but states have even more powers, including control over most sales, income, and property taxes, control of the state police, and full control over statewide legislation. State legislatures have absolute authority over counties and towns: they can alter, abolish, and overrule them at will. At the same time, it would be more difficult to get a few hundred people to move to a single county than to get a few thousand people to move to a single state. As larger territories, states have more diverse economies & communities than counties. Trying to break off a group of counties to form a new state would not work. The Constitution requires the Congress and state legislature to approve the creation of any new state, and that would not happen. "Taking over" a foreign country would be too difficult & costly. We couldn't get a lot of people to move there, and then we'd have to get citizenship.

answerguy - Yes, an influx of 20,000 activists could make a big difference. The basis for choosing that number was an analysis of the Quebec seccessionist movement a few decades ago. Jason Sorens, the FSP founder, examines the question here:What can 20,000 liberty activists accomplish? (http://www.freestateproject.org/strategies.htm)

[El Tejon]

Ian, I wish you all the best. Beware utopias!

[George Hill]

Idaho... give that state a reason to exist other than making Utahns feel better.


"At least we are not in Idaho!"

Seriously though, Idaho is a great state that has a lot of potential. I love northern Idaho and visit often.

[voilsb]

every one of those states gets too cold. why can't any of them be in the south?

[Waitone]

Perhaps the FSP ought to employ the service of an economist and a political scientist.

Where ever Utopia is set up there will need to be an economy that can absorb 20,000+ Utopians. Typcially only the larger states (the ones specifically excluded) can absorb a migration.

[Jeff Thomas]

Another interesting question is how many Americans now consider freedom (and taxes ...) when they move to another state? Based solely upon conversation, I would wager that consideration has risen in the last decade.

Regards from (relatively free) TX

[Tamara]

My Free State Project goes with me wherever I do. Wherever I am, I have a majority of one.

[dustind]

waitone, the topic was discused on free state projetcs website. The move would take place over eight years, first they select a state(@ 5000 members), then when the groups gets to 20,000 members everyone who signed up has five years to move. They would stimilate the economy when they moved in, finding jobs wont to be horribly hard, and many members are retired.

FYI Wyoming seems to be in the lead, IMHO.

The website is www.freestateproject.com (http://www.freestateproject.com)

[WYO]

Based on what I’ve seen as an immigrant to Wyoming, if FSP thinks its going to waltz into a western state with 20,000 people and make a bunch of changes, it is operating under a major delusion. The people of the states FSP is considering can be a real ornery bunch when people move in thinking they are going to change things. This is in addition to the implicit constraints caused by federal regulations that supersede anything the state does.

Has someone actually researched the laws of the target states and done a detailed comparative analysis other than the things on FSP’s website? If a state has a constitutional provision dealing with education, for example, it’s going to take a Herculean effort to get it changed. 20,000 votes will only make a difference if the population is nearly evenly divided. It won't matter in a state where elections are won with 75-80% of the vote.

The other major impediment I see is a lack of jobs. If any of these states could absorb 5-20,000 job seekers, they already would be overrun.

But, hey, it’s a free country, so have at it. The initial move should have a short term beneficial impact on the economy of the target state.

[Zander]

My Free State Project goes with me wherever I do. Wherever I am, I have a majority of one. -- TamaraThen you have officially declared your support of the FSP and registered accordingly?

Is this a solo effort on your part? Gonna emigrate from Tennessee? Or is that too much of a commitment on your part?

[dustind]

I really hope the Free staters are taken in with open arms, that will be important. They seem to want to start out colonizing certain counties. If they get counties to themselves they can have quite a bit of freedom.

Part of the idea is the 20,000 will be activists, not just voters. Plus once the first 20K come in, several profreedom types should join up. I think if something like this starts to work, people will flock in, i am pretty sure freedom will be popular. Just look at how many freedom types we have on this website. Many people want to move to a place with low taxes, gun rights, the choice to homeschool, and to end victimless crime laws.

I think I will join, i want to help work towards a constitutional goverment. Things will only get worse the longer we wait. If we can get a state, we can stand up somewhat to the feds. The state could launch several constitutional challenges to the supreme court. How many people here would not want to live in a free state, assuming it works?

edit: WYO

yes, people have done lots of research. most of it is on the forums, but all of the laws are mapped out. The rest of the info is entered into many spreadsheets done by a couple different people.

[Al Norris]

I've kind of kept an eye on this project for the last couple of months. The One Thing you folks haven't taken into account is exactly what WYO was talking about.

Here in Idaho, whioch is the most Republican state in the Union, 20K votes won't get you squat. Even should you try to take over a specific county (and about the only county that could absorb 20K people over a 5 yr period is Ada), you would all have to vote Democrat to be even a little effective!

Outside of Ada county and Blaine County (Sun Valley/Hailey/Hollywierd North), you simply wouldn't be welcomed. The folk hereabouts take a real dim view on newcomers trying to change things.

Now I'm a transplant myself. But I came here because I wanted what was here. I fit in nicely. It was only the mid 80's that saw the last person who was told to be out of town by sundown. There are some counties where this still happens. I have friends in Wyoming and Montana, can't say that the're much different in attitude, though.

Now this isn't meant to discourage ya'll. But you really, really need to look at the attitudes of the existing natives before ya come barging in. We may be small in population, but we have a mean bark and a worse bite.

[dustind]

here is one of a few reports on Idaho, they seem to have the same beliefs as the libertarians.

http://www.freestateproject.com/idaho2.htm

the only people who should be threatened by us are the socialists, and any career welfare reciepients. Idaho has a nice libertarian and constitutional party, plus pretty close to the same laws as we want.

[c_yeager]

I assume these folks have figured out how 20,000 new imigrants are going to manage to get jobs in a really sparcly populated state. I suppose that they could work as fish processors in alaska or something. But, im at somewhat of a loss how idaho's economy is going to accomodate 20,000 new people looking for some kind of employment.

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me the FS folks will be a mix of retirees, those who don't immediately need jobs, and some who will fit right in to the existing job market. It's certainly not gonna be a bunch of just Poli-Sci majors.

There is almost a "must" to the idea that these folks will be a bit above average in smarts. Gotta be, to seriously consider making the necessary changes in location, life style and political activities. Odds are, these folks will be good at their trades: Good mechanics, plumbers, electricians--as well as teachers, accountants or doctors.

And I doubt they're gonna all wad up in just one city or county.

Heck, if I didn't hate cold weather so much, I'd be right in there with them, but I already have my little hideout with almost no government at all...

:), Art

[WYO]

I would like to follow up on something that Al Norris said, and add something to what I said. I was welcomed to Wyoming, but the reason is that my family saw what it liked and moved to assimilate, not to take the place over and change it. I think that people who move to Wyoming with that attitude (and who can find a job) will do just fine. But when a group thinks it's going to tell the descendants of people who fought the Indian wars, cattle wars, depression, drought, boom-bust cycles, etc. for 125 years that "we are libertarians and we are here to change things," you can't imagine how much of a fight is in store.

dustind, I did look at the FSP website, but, unless I missed something, the materials looked superficial. It appeared that the criteria were based upon certain objective factors, like presence or absence of laws on the books on certain hot button topics. I didn't see anything dealing with the political climate, voting climate, culture, etc. I also saw some things that are downright false. For example, I saw this quote:
Federal dependence is very important. Research indicates that regions that receive more from the central government in expenditures than they pay in taxes are less likely to seek fiscal autonomy or sovereignty. Regions that pay more than they get back are more likely to seek autonomy, because they have a genuine grievance against the central government.
FSP may want to take a look at this quote as it pertains to Wyoming, because I'm quite sure that it will determine that Wyoming gets more federal aid than it pays in taxes. How do you think that a state with 500,000 population, and 97,000 square miles needing highways, gets by without a personal income tax and reasonable property and sales taxes? Just run a web search on federal subsidies, tax burden, and the like, and see what you find. This also may be true of other states in the area with small populations and large land masses.

On the job front, I can see that how a large group of retirees would lessen the need for jobs for all of the relocating people. The issue with retirees is usually the availability of transportation and medical care, which is not as good in a rural state as an urbanized state.

Again, I'm not trying to tell anyone not to move, just pointing out a few factors that probably should be considered.

Edited to add:

If anyone wants any info on relocating to Wyoming, feel free to drop me a PM with your questions.

[ahenry]

the only people who should be threatened by us are the socialists, and any career welfare reciepients. If you think that then you’ve never lived in the South (or the West for that matter). I’m 100% behind this idea, even if its bound for failure, although I don’t necessarily think that it is. However, you have no idea what you would be up against if you tried to move into a state that wasn’t so hot on the idea of people coming in and changing things. Shoot, I remember a local election not to long ago in Texas where a guy from Dallas had moved to a town and started running for offices in this new town. The local constituents considered him to be a carpetbagger (and even called him that) and didn’t elect him. And he was even a Texan and his politics matched the area perfectly, you can imagine what people would have thought if he was from out of state. I’m not trying to tell you this project is impossible, just trying to warn you. If you want to galvanize voters in these states, bring in a lot of people from out of state that express their specific desire is to change things.

[BigG]

Art, anybody who is "above average in smarts" will see this idea and its 26 year old guru is full of, well, hot air. :uhoh:

The fed gomt coerces cooperation thru use of highways, communications, commerce, etc. etc. You can't have it both ways - be a part of the USA and fence yourself off from the B:cuss: S:cuss:

Just my two sense.

George

[Art Eatman]

I guess that if I had any advice to offer FS folks, it would be to stay shut up for a year or two before becoming politically active. Just like ahenry points out, people anywhere aren't much different about any outsider jumping up and yelling.

Assimilate. Fit in. Make local friends. Become known as a good guy, a trustworthy person.

Hook up with the local Kiwanis or Rotary, etc. Get involved with the YMCA or YWCA. Become part of the community. And just "go along to get along" until your opinions on various subject will have some credibility. IOW, "Make your bones." with your neighbors.

:), Art

[Waitone]

But when a group thinks it's going to tell the descendants of people who fought the Indian wars, cattle wars, depression, drought, boom-bust cycles, etc. for 125 years that "we are libertarians and we are here to change things," you can't imagine how much of a fight is in store. I am a Southerner by choice, genetic westerner, and an Army Brat by force. Southerners to this day have to endure "Yankees" telling us how to do it better. They tell us "we don't do things that way where I'm from." They make fun of our expressions ("Sir and M'am) or even get outraged because we try to retain civility.

I've seen how "outsiders" are isolated. Human nature being what it is will not tolerate unknown people riding into town and telling the locals how they got it wrong and how to do it better. Historical memories last a long time.

Perhaps the FS'ers ought to add to their economic and political consultants a social psychologist.

[Art Eatman]

BigG, I agree with you about the "fence themselves off" aspect. They sure as heck can't get totally free of the feds, but it is indeed possible to reduce, to minimize the federal impacts.

If the "leadership" has enough political savvy (and assuming they can make headway in local and state government), it is possible to create a general political climate regarding spending such that the area is generally unattractive to those who survive via government handouts.

It's the reverse of "If you want more of something, subsidize it." E.g., those cities most active in programs for the homeless have more homeless.

This deal reminds me in part of the old days of the Republicans in Texas. Rather than work up a grassroots effort at the Precinct level, they'd run some previously-unknown millionaire for governor. Failure after failure, until the times changed. Same for the FSers. They gotta become part of the local community and after a while begin to work on local elections, first, before worrying a lot about the state-level stuff.

Stipulate they get their 20,000 into some state. It will then take some ten years before they have serious influence across the state...If and only if there is improvement, as defined by "just folks", will there be a chance of control.

Art

[BigG]

In classical antiquity one ruler sent a message to another, sumpin like, "if I come into your country I'll lay it waste and conquer you." The other ruler sent back a reply with the single word "if." :uhoh:

[Don Gwinn]

I've been trying to talk my wife into Wyoming and Montana for years (I love snow.) To be honest, I was under the impression that these are already good places to live away from large cities and do your own thing. I have delusions of forging knives and writing for a living.

If I moved there, I would vote my way. But I have to agree with those who've cautioned against a bunch of self-proclaimed Libertarians from Chicago, Miami, and New York rushing into these places and telling the residents, essentially, that they've been doing it wrong but it's OK because we're here to help.

(And when I was considering a move to Tennessee or Texas, I promised on a Bible never to utter the words "That's not how we do it back home.")
:)

[Don Gwinn]

That said, a short defense of the FSP:

People are asking about 20,000, but that's a minimum number. IF (there's that word again) the project is even somewhat successful, I assume the idea is to attract ever-more immigrants. 20,000 is the number they set to trigger the mass move to the state, probably mostly so that people would have to agree to move within a set timetable. That, of course, begs the question of what will force these people to honor their agreement. It's hard enough to get people to follow through on a phone call to their Congressman. How will they ensure that the 20,000 who promise to move will actually do so?

They seem to recognize that the fear of being the only one to uproot and move to a strange place is their main stumbling block in recruiting, but they haven't found a solution yet. I don't have one either, I'm just pointing this out.

[dance varmint]

My concerns about the whole concept are (1) they may be ignoring the dynamics of politics--how will the residents of the state react to a mass influx of libertarians and anarchists, and how would that negate the FSP goal; (2) not all 20,000 or so members would be fully committed, or spouses would squelch the idea of moving; (3) would it become a cult like the Branch Davidians, the Nike-wearing poison drinkers, or assorted communist utopias, with a fanatical leader or a fatal power struggle (Lenin/Trotsky) at the top.

[rock jock]

My biggest concern with the FSP is that when it fails (and it will, no doubt at all in my mind) it will discourage future acts of civil disobediance by patriots. The statists will hold the FSP up as an example of why big govt is necessary.

[BigG]

If there are 20,000 actual libertarians, I would be surprised. Probably more like about 120.

Regardless, whatever number there are, the way to make a change is right at home. Bite the bullet and work within whatever system you find yourself in. If the individual can rise (aye, there's the rub) then they can begin to steer things in whatever direction they see fit. Trying to run away and hide with like minded? (cough) libertarians smacks of timidity and faintheartedness to me.

[Ian]

The point of our attitude has been discussed quite a bit - we realize that arrogance is a sure path to failure. What we have to do as a group is to bring other people to support us. We have to show them in a friendly and non-confrontational way that more freedom will make for a better community. It's really quite similar to the "get a newbie shooting" actions that so many THRers engage in.

Keep in mind that the FSP doesn't want just people who acgree with us, we want activists who agree with us. We can't just take our 20,00 members, hunker down, and try to change the system. We have to become an appealing alternative for the population of the state. The philosophy of freedom doesn't conflict with western or rural culture; freedom enhances and strengthens it. That is what we need to convey to people.

As for the economy, I'm not worried. We're a very skilled and well-rounded group. Sure, we have some members who are professional writers - Vin Suprynowicz, Claire Wolfe, Boston T Party - but most of the members have skills that will not just allow them to survive in a new state, but help that state grow and prosper.

The state research is mostly contained in the State Reports, found at the bottom of http://www.freestateproject.org/articles.htm .

rock jock and BigG - I don't think that the possibility of failure is a valid reason to give up. We will never be guaranteed success - we must take a risk if we want to get a reward.

Don - There is nothing holding people to the FSP contract besides their word. I don't think too many people will sign up who aren't actually planning to follow through. One big problem with conventional letter-writing activism is that there is no perceived benefit from it. With the FSP, we hope to produce serious, visible changes. Between that and the encouragement of 19,999 other members, I think we will be able to muster a lot of energy.

[Ian]

BigG - The FSP is not a Libertarian venture, it is a pro-freedom venture. The Project has attracted a large number of conservative, Goldwater-esque Republicans and even a few like-minded Democrats.

Probably more like about 120.
At any rate, we already have nearly 3,400 members, so there are a few more of us around than you think. ;)

[BigG]

I don't think that the possibility of failure is a valid reason to give up.
Don't get me wrong. I do NOT say give up. I say you need to be a hell of a lot more subtle and above all to count the cost before you go public with some sort of scheme like this. I am not against yewt, but a 26 year-old anything will not inspire confidence in anybody. I would lose him as a spokesperson or figurehead for the movement. Even Jesus Christ was not accepted and Alexander had to crush the Thebans utterly to prove he was serious about leading the Persian Expedition. This undertaking is serious, you will have a hard time selling it, that's all I'm saying.

[rock jock]

I don't think that the possibility of failure is a valid reason to give up. We will never be guaranteed success - we must take a risk if we want to get a reward.
That's a good attitude and I commend you for it. In fact, I hope that the FSP actually comes to fruition. I forecast failure not because I don't think you can succeed in implementing the project, but rather because I think the final result will be a disaster. This is based on my belief that no society can exist long or prosper without a moral foundation. Absent a like-minded community that ostracizes the wayward and exercises pressure to ensure conformity to these moral standards, laws are the only alternative and in fact are the historically preferred form of maintaining compliance. Now, we can argue all day about the appropriateness of having any standards set by a community that restrict individual behavior or the proper role of govt. in enforcing those standards, but it really is not necessary. I know the points made by the other side of the debate and you may or may not know, or care, about mine. It basically comes down to one's individual belief-system on the nature of man. I would say, however, that a society based on a Judeo-Christian moral construct is how this country was founded and it has been very successful so far. The long-term effects of a "free" society totally devoid of any moral construct are still theoretical. Still, I would be interested in seeing this massive experiment in libertarian philosophy take place on a grand scale. If nothing else, it would really give the statists some heartburn.

[longeyes]

Great idea but remember the Fifth Law of Political Thermodynamics:

Any state that is attractive eventually turns into California.

You'll find this in the chapter on entropy.

[Ian]

Y'know, what we want to do isn'y experimental any more. The Founding Fathers already proved that it can work, and have fantastic results. Unfortunately, the system they set up has drifted far from its original nature. We just want to bring back what they created. I'm not sure how this would be detrimental to a community's moral standards.

[Chris Rhines]

I would urge anyone here with any interest in the FSP to head on over to www.freestateproject.com and check out the forums and articles. There has been a huge amount of independent research and discussion on the project, and more insight is always welcome.

- Chris

[Zander]

I think the final result will be a disaster. -- rock jockAgreed. Nice analysis...

Y'know, what we want to do isn'y experimental any more. The Founding Fathers already proved that it can work, and have fantastic results. -- IanThis seems to be a direct contradiction of rock jock's main point. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, a fact that never fails to induce palpitations in certain sub-segments of the population.

I suspect the grand experiment would have gone quite differently had it not been.

I'm all for the FSP experiment but will be observing only.

[Art Eatman]

I've always found that a person can pretty much make a decent living, any old where. The idea is to figure out what talent you can sell in some particular location. It's a lot easier for many folks, now, with the Internet than it was back forty years ago. A competent or better-than-competent worker can generally make out in "New Country".

And you don't have to be a FS activist to move to wherever they wind up going. Howsomever, life oughta be a lot more interesting in country with a buncha Claire Wolfe types moving in.

Like I say, the only thing that keeps me out of this particular game is the fact that I want my hard water from that white box in my kitchen.

:), Art

[SteelyDan]

I don't care if the kid is only 26 years old (okay, I do care a little), the premise is brilliant. Just start with one state where like-minded folk can live to escape many of the daily irritations and restrictions....it really is a cool idea. And I'd guess the "assimilation" concerns are overblown, because most of the locals in the states under discussion would share the same beliefs, and the "newcomers" philosphy would not be imposing thought control but eliminating it. My hunch is that the "job thing" will probably keep it from succeeding, but you've got my best wishes.

It's fun to think about what the liberal equivalent of such a state would be. Your health care, education, and housing would all be free, or nearly so. Unfortunately, your state income and property taxes would exceed your take-home pay. Of course, most of the residents wouldn't have a job in the first place, so what's the problem.

[Scott Evans]

Sounds like a modern crusade for holy ground.

Philosophically what sticks me with this plan is that it is nothing less then a grand surrender of the rest of the nation. Put all the salt in one spot and the entire piece of meat will rot anyway. Our influence cannot be isolated to one or two states. ALL of the US is the hallowed inheritance of liberty. I’m not willing to give any of it back.

Live where you want … because you like it there but don’t become part of a scam effort (and that is just how this would be perceived if it were to gain measurable momentum) that will leave the targeted state with no national credibility. Increase our numbers where you are. Influence the state where you are.

[stevelyn]

I'd be willing to go anywhere I can live freely, without govt interference, keep what I earn, and not be a slave to govt.

[Tamara]

Sounds like a modern crusade for holy ground.

I think most of its participants would view it more as an exodus from the land of bondage to the promised land. ;)

[Scott Evans]

“O … who will come and go with me … I’m bound for the …”:D

[Diesle]

Ill wait for proof of concept. This idea is like my last range target, full of holes.


Diesle

[Blain]

New Hampshier will win! It is the most liberty oriented state out of the bunch!

[Ian]

The way I see it, Diesle, the FSP is the modern proof-of-concept for freedom. Often, when discussing politics with someone, they take the attitude of "all that libertarian stuff sounds fine, but it's never happened anywhere." If the FSP works, it will be a great answer to those people. "Look - it works here, and we're propering despite a national depression." We have to start somewhere meaningful. I think the FSP is the optimal balance between audacity and practicality. A city is too small to have much effect, and the whole nation is too much to hold on to.

Scott - It's not a surrender, more like a retreat and regrouping. Our lines, to continue the military analogy, are spread too thin to hold the whole country - we have to choose the best defensive position and concentrate there. If we succeed, then our ideas will spread of their own accord back into the other 49 states.

stevelyn - You and me both. :)

[4v50 Gary]

They should come to Communist California and help move us from the left towards the centralist position.

[Don Gwinn]

There is nothing holding people to the FSP contract besides their word. I don't think too many people will sign up who aren't actually planning to follow through.

I don't want to sound like I wish you failure, either, but do you remember the FOUP project on TFL? Remember Citizens of America?

[Justin]

I must say I find some of the critics of the FSP highly amusing.
On one hand they say that 'It sounds like a cult, or some kind of weird religion.'

Then on the other, they say that they don't like it 'because it lacks a strong foundation in religious morals.'

Well, which is it?:scrutiny:


Besides, I fail to see how a philosophy of liberty is in any way immoral.

[WYO]

I thought the FSP'ers would be interested in an article that appeared in today's Wyoming Tribune-Eagle. http://www.wyomingnews.com/more.asp?StoryID=6871

I noticed that one of the quotes that the paper (allegedly) lifted out of an FSP report comes directly from the travel guide "Wyoming," written by Nathaniel Burt.

[goon]

assume these folks have figured out how 20,000 new imigrants are going to manage to get jobs in a really sparcly populated state. I suppose that they could work as fish processors in alaska or something. But, im at somewhat of a loss how idaho's economy is going to accomodate 20,000 new people looking for some kind of employment.

I have checked into this a little bit.
The idea isn't to move everyone there all at once. First they need to get 5000 participants. After that number is reached, they will vote on which state they want to go to. Majority rules. The whole thing is planned to happen gradually.
Their motto is "Liberty in our lifetime". Think years or decades; not months.
That could take a little while, but at least they are trying to come up with a solution.
Even if it fails, there will be several thousand more freedom loving people in a state that is already oriented towards liberty.
That can only make that state stronger.
How can that be a bad thing?
The whole idea intrigues me. I am actually considering joining very much. Gotta finish school first though.
Like I said, even if it doesn't work, it still wouldn't be the worst thing.

As for surrendering the rest of the nation...
There is nothing that says the rest of the nation can't follow suit once they see it can work. Seeing as how that is the basic premise of the idea, moving to another state is not a surrender. It is part of the plan.

Is it surrender for a resident of Washington DC to move to rural West Virginia?
Should they just stay put instead of moving their family away from a place where they have no right to defend themselves?