Slashdot Mirror
The Free State Project
Psychic Burrito writes "From their website: The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S. to secure there a free society. We will accomplish this by first reforming state law, opting out of federal mandates, and finally negotiating directly with the federal government for appropriate political autonomy." Perhaps they should also read Everything: Kansas. I think Don Marti was also the one who thought the geeks should do this by moving en masse to North Dakota.
Not responding, however here is the google cache.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Wasn't this tried already? Like, uhm, the Civil War? States rights supreme. Freedom from the Federalists. etc...
Jeeze, go out and rent 'Civil War' (it's only like 10 hours of documentary)...
Oh, and we covered this topic a long time ago at Poliglut.
/. shouldn't, just that politically minded folk might find a politcally oriented site a better resource than /. for politics.
Not that
Ok, so, the idea is to move a whole shitload of people to one area and create a state where libertarianism rules supreme. This sounds vaguely like what the Mormons do, and they've got a good head start on us. You might get a significant constituency, or a city, but a state is certainly outside the grasp of this.
Come to North Dakota!
:) But I'm afraid that we won't let you make your own "free society." If you want to do that, move to Montana.
I think Don Marti was also the one who thought the geeks should do this by moving en masse to North Dakota.
Hey, North Dakota's got such a low population right now, we'd be happy to have more people move here!
The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S. to secure there a free society.
Let's see here, in our last election, Bush got 60% of the vote, so with a population of about 600,000 people, that means that roughly 400,000 of them are conservative. So, even if we have 20,000 liberals move here, that still won't change our conservative state!
Come to North Dakota!
Liberal? Where the hell did you get that idea? I'm a conservative through and through. I was saying they are going to want to have their own laws and country, but want US to fund it. And to that, I'd tell them to go jump in a river.
From the FAQ:
Q. I love the idea of the FSP, but I only want to live someplace warm -- I'd never make it in those cold states. Can't you make a warmer state an option?
Which could be read as:
I want liberty but my political beliefs end at having to buy a winter coat.
Your view of the California debacle is not uncontroversial
Couple things:
1) Arizona has WAAAAAY too many people here to try something like that. The Phoenix metro is huge, over 7 million people.
2) The Native Americans are in no way forced to live on reservations, they are US citizens and may live in any city in the US they choose. There are more than plenty that DO live in one of the cities in Arizona, or just move out of the state.
Google for Eric Raymond's libertarian FAQ.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
The threat to withold highway funds is only persuasive to some states: those states which have more roads, per capita, then their tax base would ordinarily support.
Specifically, highway funds come from a Federal pool to which each state contributes according to their ability, and from which funds are allocated to each state, according to their need.
It's only if your net take is larger than your net input that witholding of federal highway funds is persuasive.
Most unfunded mandates originate in California (the organ donor reduction acts -- also called "motorocycle helmet laws", and similar legislation on drinking age, speed limits, and other unfunded mandates are basically cafeteria plans for mandates that say "you will adopy 3 out of 5 of the following legislation in order to maintain funding")... and California is on the other side of that equation.
In the limit, the reason that the highway system was nationalized in 1956 is that there was a national security argument for support of mobile command posts, in the event of a nuclear war (and later downgraded to "any national emergency", after the widespread protests surrounding the vietnam war).
If that theory still holds, then it's in the federal government's best to continue supplying funds, regardless of what the state does or does not do (or it can see its interstate system go to hell in a handbasket, threatening national security).
-- Terry
Here are my suggestions for funding: Paul Allen, Steve Wozniak, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison and BILL GATES. There really aren't that many people in the world who have enough money to attempt such a grand feat. Even fewer who could EVER be convinced there was some reason to sink their entire fortunes in such lunacy (sorry).
I'm afraid it would take REAL geeks to fund this operation which has no practical application or potential for return on investment. The heirs of Sam Walton are super wealthy, but not likely to fall for this plan.
Quick quiz: Name something the moon colony could export to Earth that couldn't be made and transported more cheaply either on Earth or in low Earth orbit (or simply done without)?
Until we have a VERY compelling answer to that question, private companies are NOT going to fund a great big geek colony on the moon for its own sake. Companies do not exist without profit. That is not a view that is popular in these parts, but it is as fundamentally true as plants need carbon dioxide and animals need oxygen. Funding a moon colony that couldn't pay back huge returns would make no more sense than a tiger spending most of his time gathering up plants for the little lambs to eat. Sure it makes him a hell of a guy, but in the end he starves.
That leaves only (drum roll please) the federal government... So the best bet for escaping the federal government (and that pesky gravity well) is the federal government.
Don't forget: when Europeans came to the new world, they didn't have to bring their oxygen with them...
this may have been pointed out already, but here is the "answer" to your "question": the Supreme Court has interpreted the 'Commerce Clause" to mean that Congress can legislate anything that AFFECTS interstate commerce (in my opinion, not an entirely absurd interpretation). thus, since the state of California growing marijuana AFFECTS the interstate drug trade, the Feds can intervene.
(For reference, the decision took place upon the situation of a farmer who grew his own feed, raised his own cattle, and sold it all only to people in his state. there was NO interstate commerce being conducted, so he wanted to be free from FDA regulations on clean meat. the US Supreme Court said no, he was participating in a fudamentally interstate trade, thus must follow Fed rules.)
peace
Which, interestingly enough, is not a state...and they're not particularly happy about that. They have no representation in the senate (at least, not any whose votes are actually counted), nor the House, and even put "Taxation without Representation" on the city license plates as a jab at the fact that they're the only part of the continental US that has no power in congress.
They might just be up for a revolution...would be worth a try...
Without drug or gun laws, what use do you expect they will have for "federal police", whatever those are?
and military protection from the US.
Are you joking? They are more likely to need protection from the U.S. military.
They'll also expect the US Government to not let utility companies gouge them in prices,
As libertarians, they are adamantly against government regulation, including price regulations.
and they'll likely expect constant infrastructure improvements, such as highway building/maintenance.
They specifically state that they will turn down federal highway funding. Next time try reading the linked page before inflicting your misinformed speculations upon us.
Hospitals and law enforcement should be corporately run
You're joking right? Private law enforcement? Excuse me, while I take a moment to stop laughing. I don't mean to be rude, nor sarcastic, but that is the most asinine thing I've heard in a long time.
Private Law Enforcement. What happens when the CEO of your law enforcement company decides he doesn't like you living in his neighbor and arrests you? Are you going to fight him in corporate court?
Like it or not, there is a definite need for a central government to protect you from foreign aggression, maintain internal order (i.e. law enforcement), and to administrate the courts. That is what this country was founded upon. Of course in the last 260 years it has veered way off track and now we have TOO MANY laws. Too much bureaucracy. But does that mean we must resort to the opposite end of the spectrum? The other extreme?
Add some safe guards to your plan before attempting your utopian idea. Else, you might find yourself working for one individual who owns the police, fire, library, courts, and is your "elected" official.