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.
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!
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.
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...
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.
I have yet to actually see anyone making the claim of "Increased costs of healthcare" actually produce figures to back it up.
a febike/endnotes.html
Having debated this issue while in college, I've done my homework. Here's some reading:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/s