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.
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
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.
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
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?
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!".
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'
"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.
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.