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.
Perhaps at first it will seem as it worked out. But when they reached some goals they'll probably fall out with each other over little issues.
I am not trying to look into a crystal ball, I am just pondering about it, thinking about other coaltions of people.
Like, the people who already live in the chosen state? Or will they get the same treatment as the Native Americans, the last time such a grandiose scheme was attempted?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
But most great ideas seem to be lacking in practical application. This one, however, does have some interesting strategies.
:P
My issues:
1) Family. I can't convince my parents, and my wife's parents to pick up and move. I don't want to seperate my children from their grandparents.
2) Professional Saturation. Lets just face it, Ted Knight was right when he said "The world needs ditch diggers too." There will be a ton of other smart guys out there. My profession (consulting) is all about being smart for other people.
If you can solve these issues(don't see how you can with #1)... I'm there.
SpamapS -- Undernet #Linuxhelp
"We will repeal state taxes
Wow, but wait...
"Make a donation"
I see....
While in principle I agree with the objection to unconstitutional laws I have a real problem with privatizing everything. I see street-sweeping, electricity, etc. as one of the reasons for government. As Enron, and Colifornia have shown private companies cannot be trusted with basic infrastructure. And, as At&T, the RIAA, and AOLTW have shown eliminating all regulation is the best way to encourage monopolies.
I hate bad government, I also hate bad corporations.
Irvu.
I think that it would be perfectly consistent of their Libertarian viewpoint to accept military protection from the federal government. They just won't accept abridgement of individual freedom in trade for it.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Wyoming is demographically ideal for this kind of thing.
I don't know if the current inhabitants would mind too much, either. They seem to generally be hostile to the federal government. OTOH, without much of a manufacturing or service base, I think the econonmy probably is dominated by extractive industries such as mining and ranching. Thus, the choice between economic livlihood and a beautiful environment usually weighs in heavier on the former, since the local perspective is that there's "plenty enough" of the latter.
I had heard of something akin to this on a county level occuring in Oregon a few years ago, where enough Hare Krishna (?) adherents moved in to affect the makeup of the county government.
But from what little I remember of the Civil War / War Between the States, the federal government of the United States won't take kindly to secession.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
When the US has control over a territory, we never want to let it go. Why would we even let these guys do this?
Take a look at this for some examples of territories we (the US) have made claim to. We've faught wars to protect these territories. You think that we would just give up some of it to a bunch of idealists who think they can make the perfect society?
Yeah, right.
The deciding factor in whether or not something like this will be successful, is how the courts (and supreme court) interpret the freedom of a state to create and practice law widely different than the 49 other states.
Remember that in the constitution, it is stated that no citizen shall be denied equal protection of rights, and importantly, that federal law is supreme when Congress speaks to a question of law (trumping state law). So citizens have an expectation that states will have a bascially consistent set of laws under which they can live. (the supreme court has taken cases which test the ability of states to "pioneer" new kinds of law, and this is contentious I believe)
Therefore, while it might be easy to get some measures passed (ones that no one would conceivably object to), other more controversial measures might be quite difficult.
Just look at the medical marijuana thing in CA. The state says that it's ok, but the federal government says it isn't. And what happens? People get arrested for using and distributing it. Federal law has supremacy over local/state law, regardless of how charitable or well-intentioned.
This plan would work if the 10th Ammendment actually meant something. Anything the new 'liberated' state tries to do will be summarily shut down and/or harrassed by the feds - from witholding highway funds to them simply coming in on federal level and enforcing whatever draconian BS they feel like.
The idea is great in theory, but I can't imagine how it could work in todays less ideal world.
www.enthea.org
I can't wait to live in North Dakota or some other barren state that even eskimos don't want to live. Sorry, but I'm heading off to Costa Rica instead. Fun and sun baby.
Wish you guys the best. Can't wait to see how the an economy maintained by geeks goes. I can just see 'em building their own roads, handling their own refuse collection, etc... Oh well, crazy people have to do something with all their spare time.
Not one, but a large group of states tried this already: in 1860. They had a lot more people interested than a mere 20,000 or so, an existing infrastructure, a cause supported at least in theory by the majority, a cultural identity, and the best Army officers.
They still lost.
This won't work simply because a vast majority of people who join a movement like this are much more comfortable posting on a website blog, K5, or Slashdot than they are at moving to another state simply because of a website; many are crackpots that can agree with no one. There are no "rebel states" where even a significant minority resent being part of the US; whatever state it may be, the residents will instead resent a huge influx of wild-eyed dissidents. The movement is in the name of "liberty", which sounds good, but is an intentionally vague concept that people have a hard time agreeing on, particularly armchair politicians.
My prediction: It won't get off the ground. It's a project like the American Civil War, and the people who propose this kind of thing are far, far less suited to go through with it than their southern counterparts of 142 years ago.
There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
Yes, but you're making the very mistaken assumption that 100% of the population votes.
Since the realistic number is closer to 30% of registered voters, and roughly 50% of the people are registered, the number shrinks drastically - you're talking about 250k voters here. If you manage to get all 20k of your culti... er, devoted followers to vote (and vote the same way) then you have an 8% voting block which is pretty significant.
So let me get this straight:
20,000 people who prize individual freedom above all else will move into a state and then trample over the wishes of the previous populace to get their preferred form of government enacted.
Did I miss something?
I'm thinking more along the lines of "Waco, Texas". The outcome was similar, in any case.
Can anybody tell me why I shouldn't think of this as extremist or fanatical? Maybe I'm reading this in the wrong mood, but it seems to me like they're only trying to fix what they see wrong, as opposed to re-designing the system to be more useful. It doesn't seem like they understand why some things work the way they do.
"We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs." -- Define wasteful. There's some that think that healthcare coverage of birth control is 'wasteful'. Others think that unwanted pregnancies cause greater 'wasteful' heatlh expense.
"We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws." -- Who's to judge 'unconstitutional'? Not that I actively pay attention to cases like this, but there's always opposing views. Some think that a law may be unconstitutional, but others have a different perspective that says it is constitutional. So... where's the middle ground? Who's to judge?
They're asking me to donate money and sign a petition with promises of utopica, but other than pandering to my desires (no taxes! no gov't unfairness!) they're not providing me with any useful data about how they'd meet my needs.
So, no, I don't see value here. I would understand if they were saying "Let's get together all the 'like-minded about certain issues' people into one state", instead they're saying "let's create a land where the gov't can't intrude!".
I didn't see this in the google cahche of the sight so forgive me if i missed it. Is the FSP going to consider the vocation of its members when choosing a location? Or, are the Sowftware and Semicon guys going to have work on the docks new positions open. And, how about deadbeats and those down on their luck? Is the FSP going to allow wards of the state?
Just for the record, there is NO "off the record" record.
Make a record of that.
It's only if your net take is larger than your net input that witholding of federal highway funds is persuasive.
Wrong logic. This only would be true if a state could choose to fund its own highways and not pay any federal taxes that go into the federal highway fund. Your state's taxpayers pay the Fed. And your state tries to get it back for you in the name of funds. And you can't tell me it isn't political. boatloads of the cash earmarked for highways don't even go to anything having to do with transportation.
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.
But if the federal government withholds your highway funds, they still make you pay your taxes to support them. In other words, even if you're paying more into the highway system than you're getting out, it's still a better deal than getting NOTHING out. So it's persuasive to every state whose citizens pay federal taxes - i.e. every state in the country.
grep -ri 'should work'
Oh yeah, this sounds like a great idea. If you thought the Slashdot trolls were annoying, just wait until you LIVE in Slashdot.
"What can be done in a single state? A great deal. We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs.
Repeal state taxes? Sounds really nice. But remember we live in the United States of Litigiousness. In addition, you'll probably have to change the state constitution and that in itself will take no less than a decade.
Bottom line: repeal of state taxes won't happen for the generation that "starts" the independent state, but for the second generation.
We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws.
In this day and age of the "Patriot Act," CARNIVORE, and the overwhelming need for security (according to our current administration) there is no way that 20,000 or even 100,000 people could break the federal hold on states. Those who have tried on a much smaller basis (Ruby Ridge and Pine Ridge) are either dead or in prison.
We will repeal laws regulating drugs and guns.
And the federal authorities that you no longer collaborate will seize any and all public or private property that has anything to do with any type of (federally) illegal narcotic; and when you resist, the President will federalize your own National Guard to defeat you.
10th Amendment power has been whittled away for the past 250 years. It does not have enough power to over turn federal drug and weapons laws.
We will end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain.
See above.
We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and monopolies. Then we will negotiate directly with the federal government for more autonomy.
Yeah, Jefferson Davis thought he could do the above too. Lincoln thought different. We all know what happened next.
There exists a delicate balance of power between the federal government and the 50 states. Before you go running off to create your own independent state, you may want to create some alliances with other states. If you go it alone (be it with 20,000 people) you will fail.
Don't forget history. It was not Washington and the Colonial army alone that defeated the British, it was the French Navy and Army with the Colonial army that defeated the British.
And a small request: after you have your own "free" state, work hard to call a federal constitutional convention, so that the Constitution can be changed.
Out
Yes, because you need to be 21 to be old enough to drink.
It is much more important that you are that old to drink. Stuff like the following really doesn't require that much responsiblity.
Vote
Join the army
Drive a car
Have sex (and children)
Work
Pay taxes
Own a gun
Yeah good thing we don't let those kids drink.
Good luck finding a state in Canada.
Seriously though, given that we are a little more socialist than the US, Canada would be a poor choice to promote a libertarian agenda.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
That logic works only because most people don't vote until some minority group uses their numbers to push through some idiotic piece of legislation. The idiotic law disgusts the majority so much that they will vote at the first opportunity they have to put the minority in its place. This has been demonstrated in local elections where, say, the Christian right has made a concerted effort to win control of the local school board. Their control typically lasts about one term before they have made such asses of themselves that the average eligible voter goes to the polls just to rid their town of the embarassment.
FreeSpeech.org
I pay the same taxes you do, and I don't have any kids. Obviously, your view that "property taxes" == "tuition for your kids" is a not quite accurate. HTH
XML causes global warming.
The speed limit isn't just for traffic control, there are also good environmental reasons for keeping speed under control. This report http://www.epa.gov/otaq/reports/envspoms.htm by the EPA found a 153% increase in carbon monoxide emissions at 65 mph versus 55 mph.
"I think the U.N. is going to find that the blame lies with all the Sudanese rap music that glamorizes genocide."
Why is it so wonderful to have the states interfere with my life and so terrible to have the feds do it?
Every time any sort of goods are transported to or from your state to other states your state is getting a benefit from the federal funding for highways.
Unless your state never trades any goods and is totally insular, you DO benefit from the highways in other states.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
And if all geeks moved to North Dakota, then certainly I wouldn't be moving there. I would like some normal people around as well, not to mention people of the opposite sex.
And if you really believe you can get a significant portion of freedom-loving people to move to some state, you are severly misguided about what freedom means. Because freedom-lovers love their freedom, they will not be moved around like cattle.
And while getting all free thinkers to have the same fun idea at the same time (if even for 5 minutes) is close to impossible, making all of them have the same fun idea for long enough to actually sell their house and move to North Dakota (or wherever) is far worse than impossible.
I read /. more than I ought to (my employer probably agrees with that.) But I post rarely, because usually someone has already said it, and I don't go for the "me too" stuff.
But damn, is there anyone here who can say anything positive? Does no one share this dream?
Why is it that when a "bad" YRO story comes out (RIAA doing something obnoxious, or the courts making some anti-liberty decision, or just another "The US sucks" story) commenters come out of the woodwork to say how bad it is. People scream "VOTE!" Or "Write your congresscritter!" Yet here we have a story about a group of people who are willing to not only vote, but CHANGE THEIR LIVES for the purpose of freedom. Not just to benefit themselves, but to be an example, so perhaps those of use stuck back here not-so-free states might see and be motivated and encouraged.
Isn't this what you want? More individual freedom? Or are all you only interested in being able to copy your OggVorbis files, but you don't give a rat's ass about true freedom in the wider world? I assure you, you'll still be able to have your OggVorbis files while under martial law.
I came across the Free State Project a bit over a week ago on my own. I was impressed, but more than that, I was in awe. It was a completely new thought to me. It was empowering. You mean here we are in the "post September 11th" US (God I hate that phrase), and yet there are people who still have the same dreams as Jefferson and company? And the BALLS to do something real to achieve it? To me, this looks like one of the few rays of hope left.
I want to sign up. I want to go. I talked to my wife about it, but she doesn't get as fired up as I do about freedoms. I am ready to go now, but it will take the screws being turned more before she would consent to going. I LONG to go.
You might say I'm talking out of my ass since I haven't signed up. I'm torn between family and freedom. But I'll tell you, I vote in elections, I write to my congress-people, and I strike up conversations with people about current events, and tie it back to freedom. I donate to the Libertarian party. I try to make other people see how one infringement on freedom--even if it doesn't directly affect them--will eventually come back to bite them in the ass.
But in this case, so far all I can do is lend my enthusiastic support, and long for the day I can join these people.
You might think these people are nuts, but consider: Perhaps 5% liberty-nuts can create a new Constitution-abiding state (or country). 5% (or less) can destroy it, as is happening now. The other 90% of the population is just along for the ride. Given the choice, I'll side with the freedom-nut any day.
Shouldn't you all be building them up, rather than tearing them down? Aren't we all in this together?
Think about it.
Thanks for reading, and considering.