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.
But the question is, "Which State?" Basically they all suck. The Northeast is too crowded and cold. The Dakotas? Minnesota? No thanks, waaaaayyyyyy too cold for me. Perhaps the answer is in AZ or NM. Aren't there significant numbers of native Americans there, forced into squalid living conditions on Federal "reservations", that would be only too willing to negotiate a new deal for themselves? Instant constituency.
Some states in that bunch have a history of liberty-mindedness, making it able to make use of existing population, and some of em are small enough that 20,000 voters could have a profound effect on any state-wide votes.
Of course, 20,000 votes goes a long way in any state with close elections. Maybe they should all move to Florida, instead... more electoral votes, anyway.
Exactly. Which part of the statement that the government exists to protect individuals from force and from fraud did the original poster not understand? In defense, the military is all about protecting from force.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
According to the FAQ they believe with 20k supporters they could control a state with a population of 1.5M or less. How 20k votes outweigh 1.5M is one of the small details they don't explain. I wonder if they will get it figured out before the tanks roll into their compound.
It's like that joke about why California has earthquakes, and Quebec has separatists - California got first pick!
Anyway, 20,000 people - that's not even a decent-sized town nowadays. There's no leverage to "negotiate" with the federal or state governments.
Isn't sedition unprotected speech in the US of A?
"We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs. We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws. We will repeal laws regulating drugs and guns. We will end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain. We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and monopolies. Then we will negotiate directly with the federal government for more autonomy."
What?
This idea was originally suggested by a group of American socialists back in about 1890, in the days when 20,000 people would actually let you form a territorial government, at a time when state governments had a hell of a lot more power than they do now. Didn't work out back then, either. Read any history of the Socialist Party or of Eugene Debs.
You know the world is going to hell when Libertarians start stealing ideas from 19th century socialists and passing them off as original.
11% of the population in a state with 1.5M would be 165k. 20k = 1.3%. So if the state regularly votes 51.3/48.7 on a given issue, perhaps they could sway it. More likely they would sway it by campaigning and lobbying, but still 20k people is pretty inconsequental in the larger scheme of general population votes. They could win local seats if all 20k move into the same county for instance, but this still would leave very limited power. Its a start I supposes.
Have you been following the Supreme Court lately? They've been coming down in favor of states over the federal government whenever possible.
Besides, if the 'liberated' state can't along without highway funds, then there is something wrong with the whole scheme.
I've been wondering about the Feds and the marijuana in California. Where does the Federal Government get the mandate to do anything in Californiat regarding that?
For most drugs, the source of the drug trade comes from outside the country, or perhaps between states. Thus it falls under Federal jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution. However, if the marijuana is grown in California, sold in California, and never leaves California, then it should not be under Federal jurisdiction. If it is, then they're violating States' rights.
Remember when they passed the Federal law forbidding guns within a certain distance of schools? That was unconstitutional and the Supreme Court struck it down. Wish the Feds would learn to play by the rules as far as drugs are concerned. I think they should start having the medical marijuan tagged for origin and purpose in California. That would make it impossible for the Feds to claim jurisdiction or legal applicability.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
- Push out big business. They put up the money for politicians. If you want a chance, they have to be out of the picture
- Outnumber the old people. The elderly put in the most votes, so you need to outnumber then by a lot.
- Seperate from the Union. To avoid federal mandates. History shows that this isn't gonna be easy. Good luck on building that military, too...
Perhaps you're just better off building a militia and taking over France, and changing the French government. May I suggest bastille day? That's the day they are most in the mood to surrender...Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
If the state normally votes 55/45 on a given issue...
The reason that this is often the case is that the two parties often have very similar agendas. Sure, your 11% might get the final say between two alternatives. But it seems unlikely that one of those two alternatives is an utter removal of the state government. It is only possible to use the position tip the scales over from one popular position to another - it is not possible to push through an independent and controverisal agenda.
Tor
Right now, I doubt there is anywhere on earth that is quite this way - transportation has made the world smaller and smaller, and most lands with any value already have indiginous peoples who are not likely to let some Americans in "to coexist peacefully and start our own government." Too much well-known history with the Indians.
So where is there a place out of reach of government by distance, where you might possibly find funding to get to and to develp, and where there are no indigiginous tribes to worry about? The moon! Simply find a corporation or society or extremely rich philanthropist willing to support the founding... until a hundred or so years later when they try to impose a tax on your tea and you have to mount a Revolution.
Highway funds can be persuasive. I believe it was the threatened withdrawl of highway funds that forced Montana to adopt a daytime speed limit, which they didn't have.
Honestly, having the same speed limit for the overpopulated, hilly, crowded East and the great plains of the West, where you can see other cars a mile off, is just having a rule for the sake of having a rule. It's a fine proof by example that there's a maximum number of people one government can represent effectively.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Their theory of controlling by 20,000 voters is good, but if this project went through, and major law changes began, the rest of the population would see this on TV.
For the MAJOR changes they want, the rest of the population would actually vote to put down their little rebellion. NIMBA (not in my backyard as*hole)is a powerful motivational theory.
On another note, my choice for them is any state governed by a pro wrestler. That state has a proven history of voting a bit strangly.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Actually, very little police force would be needed in a state where there is no gun or drug prohibition.
-Peter
Especially if they had real incomes. Only 7000 people on the island make over $50K. Prince Edward Island is a money-loser, subsidized by the Canadian government. About 25% of the island's income is is social security or farm subsidies. Economic growth in 2001 was 0.1%. Main sources of income are fishing and potatoes. Yet it's a beautiful place. It could become a high-tech center like Ireland. And there's a bridge to the mainland now; it's not as isolated as it used to be. You can drive there from Boston in a day. It's even a nice summer vacation spot.
(1) we chose a state with no income taxes and a means for the people to get things done (i.e., laws supporting initiatives, referenda, and recalls);
(2) we arrange some sort of communal living structure, similar to college dorms, except we have multiple individuals or groups living together to split the living expenses -- safety and power in numbers;
(3) we all read Atlas Shrugged at least once to develop the mindset that being selfish is good, and staying behind for others (like family) to feed off us is bad.
But, really, how likely is that? Do you really want to live with me?
If you had, oh say a million dollars worth of personal property you used in your business, and the Federal goverment tried to create a law to outlaw your ability to use that equipment, and just "take it away", you'd probably be up in arms too.
Think about it from the point of view of a typical southern plantation owner. It's clearly braindead thinking, but at the time, slaves were unquestioningly personal property, and that view was both written into law and affirmed by the Supreme Court. To the southern plantation owner, talk about "freeing the slaves" probably sounded as much like fighting words as "Napster" sounds to the RIAA today. You might think that the "wrongness" of "ownership of Intellectual property" is a no-brainer, but there are powerful people with much to lose who might take a dim view of a Supreme Court ruling which outlaws Copyright, or affirms the right of WaRez D00dz to distribute digital copies of anything they can get their hands on.
Or, do you get upset at the thought that some Senator from South Carolina wants to include DRM in every computer, and take away your right to run Linux? If so, then you have a hint of why the people in the Sucessionist states thought they had something meaningful to give their lives for. They were not only defending their personal property from an "illegal taking" but defending their State(s) from an invasion by the military forces of foreign States.
(Before the Americal Civil War, the phrase "United States of America" was considered to be plural, as in "The United States are..." It was not until after the Civil War that it took on a common meaning as a singular, as in "The United Stated is...". )
Or, for those readers who don't consider themselves to be "Westerners", how would you react if some World Government declared that an integral part of your culture (your language, your religion, your disrespect for Steamboat Willie, etc) were against their interests and sent troops to invade and set you right? Get the picture?
Some would go so far as to argue that Lincoln was actually losing the war for as long as he maintained it to be about Federal rights over States Rights, and that the only way he won was to change the context of the war into one against slavery. There's at least room to debate that if the Union Army has lost at Gettysburg, things in North America would be very different today.
So, personally, I wouldn't discount the chances of a movement with the moral high ground suceeding in reclaiming a state's rights over federal rights. Such a movement would likely provide benefits to all of the other states, (including ones with nothing to do with this movement) and so would likely garner support from other states as well. The key, of course, would be to maintain the moral high ground, and to have a willingness to fight for what they believe in. This would demand that all actions be taken within the constraints of law, but there's actually plenty of wiggle room there.
Are you concerned about things like Microsoft licensing, DRM in your computer, and free music? Really? Do you care enough about it to sleep out in a field this winter at Bull Run without a blanket, and eat worms (or go hungry, if you can't find any)? How about a smaller sacrifice: give up DSL for dial-up? No? Neither did the Union army, and look what happened to them.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
But, having said that, I think I'm on pretty stable ground when I say that a dominant system of laws, taxes, and accountability like the Federal Government, hates competition. It has the ways and means to obstruct, and flat-out put-down any social movement, regardless of the constitution. The Federal Government is the single most powerful organization within the CONUS, with the ways and means to influence legislation, and commerce with any domestic or international business. It controls aspects of the transportation infrastructure that are nightmarishly indentured by laws and regs that span the CONUS, and given even the slightest whiff of sucession from any of the laws and policies that empower it, we can expect a swift and immediate response (California is probably the most independent state in the CONUS, and they're walking on a knife's edge).
Anything short of a technology or an event which completely renders such an organziation impotent and the result will always be the same...the dissolution of the new order, and the replacement and reinforcement of the pre-existing order. In this way, the FedGov is like water being balanced between all the sinks, completely submerging the states. Any state that tries to rise above it will face a tsunami...people are weak, and softer than ever these days, and the technologies and methods of coercion are more sophisticated now than they have ever been.
We are a society of shoppers. We are no longer the farmers and the soldiers we once were...our hands are soft and our backs are weak. Maybe being brutalized by the iron-glove of the fedgov may turn all of that around. Society is starting to demand common-sense laws about some controlled substances that have existed in the underground--by proxy in the homes of the citizens, seeing constant use without all of the horror promised by the we-know-better-than-you government--but are seeing more and more demand in public...it may be a representational democracy, but even public figures have to occasionally listen to their voters. It's probably the most satisfying aspect of the democratic experiment, but everyone should enjoy seeing politicians squirm as they earn their money.
In the end, we all want our sitcoms, our nice roads, EMT service, and hospitals...and compliance pays more than grass-roots optimism and bartering ever have, or possibly will. In physics, there is a conservation of energy. In society, the same thing applies, but instead of energy it's comfort. As long as people are comfortable nothing is going to change.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
No. States pay the highway funds. They are not collected directly from individual tax payers. They are not part of the federal tax bill you pay.
Utah had a lively discussion over this when the motorocycle helmet law mandate was introduced ("pass this law or lose your highway funding").
The state pays into, and the state gets paid out of, a federal fund.
The state can choose not to forward the monies.
The escalation curve is not pretty.
-- Terry
Mod this sucker down. Here's why...
I've been signed up for the FSP for months. I don't need a bunch of clueless kiddies signing up for the project with no intention of following through, THIS IS MY LIFE you're messing with, kids.
So you don't agree with the project.... Cool. Don't want your type anyway, shut up and go play xbox. Let us alone to succeed or fail on our own merits.
Because we all know that volunteer fire departments don't work? Oh wait I was being sarcastic again...
Henry George and the single-taxers did the analysis more than 100 years ago, and concluded that only in Delaware would it be possible. Sadly, it proved impossible here as well, with George's supporters taking only 3% of the vote on election day.
Although George did not successfully take over Delaware, and many of his soldiers were arrested, three communities devoted to his principles survive today, and retain a unique flavor as well as an unusual legal climate created primarily by elaborate deed restrictions on properties.
Arden, Ardentown, and Ardencroft are all thriving communities today. And the Georgists have a web site.