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.
I think Don Marti was also the one who thought the geeks should do this by moving en masse to North Dakota.
I thought that was intended as more of a refugee camp type of thing.
I hope it works, but it would take a lot of dedication on their part. I would consider moving to the selected state after the plan is already underway. We can have a Quebec in the US!
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
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.
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.
Hmmm. They're going to opt-out and then try to negotiate better tax rates.
Maybe I'm jaded, but *my* reading of washington (and I read a lot, notice my sig) is that they will happily allow this highly unlikely state to opt out and re-allocate the funding to their own districts then do precisely nothing to lower the federal burden on the LP state.
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 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.
After opting out of everything, I bet they'll still want protecting by the US Army, Navy and Air Force.
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
Good Lord, I hope they're not contagious. People need to deal with the modernization of society. If they're unhappy with the power of corporations, there are appropriate forums to express their angst.
It seems like they want to become like Quebec..
Was that Don Marti or Don Martin?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats 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)...
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.
I remember reading about a series of events during the middle part of the 19th century that leads me to believe the federal government might not let this happen.
Yet Another Web Site
The South tried this once already gang. Didn't work. The Imperialists will come after you with guns and say "stop that" just like they did back then.
Karma whoring is cool! But this really serves a purpose.
google cache of FAQ
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
how convenient. get all the liberty-oriented people in one place where they can easily be destroyed.
Obviously, the town they should target is Freedom, OK
And it is right near Protection, KS.
Which just goes to show, you can have either Freedom or Protection, but not both.
www.eFax.com are spammers
They plan to democratically create their
own laws, so it's no different than
the current situation, really.
Considered harmful.
"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.
It's a shame he has to bring Libertarians into this mess... gives the rest of a bad name if you ask me.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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. We will be a community of freedom-loving individuals and families, and create a shining example of liberty for the rest of the nation and the world. ...they'll be broke, owing to the fact that they'll be spending so much time on business-hours activism that they won't have any time to actually work and maintain a useful economy, but at least they'll be shining.
I grew up in Montana...
I heard this stuff every week...be real curious if it worked...I HIGHLY doubt it would, of course....but it'll be fun...get rid of those pesky Californians who keep moving into the state.
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
Precisely where do you intend to go where 20,000 people will have any say whatsoever on a statewide level?
20,000 people might be enough to influence local politics, but good luck getting statewide crack-smoking legislation changed.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
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."
Isn't Vermont already a little bit like that?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
...ship'em all out to the Antarctica and rename it the "Land of the Frees".
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
No...you would need a diverse population, otherwise this scenario will develop:
Help Wanted
Computer professional with 15+ years of experience in the following: C, C++, Java, TCP/IP, Windows, AIX, Solaris, VAX, Assembler, VB, HP-UX, AS/400, Cryptography, AI, and be willing to serve coffee to the boss.
Minimum Educational Requirements: 3 PhD's in Computer Science.
Must be willing to live in antartica 6 or more months per year.
Maximum salary: $6.50/hour
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.
Yup.
It will be pretty amusing watching this state pay federal taxes, get nothing in return, and have to boast state taxes (be they in the form of income, sales or user) to pay for the roads, et alia, that the feds do today.
Not that the system isn't broken, but this solution is about as likely to succeed as my sons chess team taking on Brazil in the world cup finals.
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.
These people haven't even kicked the Y2k problem yet. Just look at the lower left corner of their homepage:
"This page was updated on December 13, 1901"
How long until their little utopia becomes the thing they fled?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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
...same as the old boss.
Politicians, politicians we don't need no politicians.
Go read Animal Farm!
"I think Don Marti was also the one who thought the geeks should do this by moving en masse to North Dakota."
When we get there we will rename it to GNU/North Dakota.
Oh, come on. North Dakota only "sounds" cold 'cause it has the word "North" in it. Heck, I live in VA and I never go to North Carolina 'cause it just sounds too cold.
I'm sure it's a wonderful warm place, with beaches and bikini parties year 'round. I wish they'd just drop that stupid "North" thing and then everyone could see the truth.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Quebec.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
"The Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.com/) calls for 20,000 libertarians and fellow-travelers to move to a single state of the U.S. to create a free society there through the electoral process."
So, I guess the libertarians are fed up with not winning elections. I wonder where the hell they are going to find 20,000 voting libertarians?
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
First read the story of how the residents of the Florida Keys did this in 1982, and created the Conch Republic!
That's a much nicer place to secede from the union.
:-)
From their FAQ:
...repeal of most gun control laws, repeal of most drug prohibition laws...
Yes! I want the freedom to shoot at anyone while on crack!
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
In fact, Jefferson went so far as to say this if the US was every united under one set of Federal laws, it would quickly become the most corrupt government in the world. But then, that could never happen, right?
Liberty is dangerous -- but it is worth it. Of course, you need to keep in mind that libertarians are pretty heavily armed as a group. We oppose the initiation of force -- but once you initiate it, your ass is grass.
(I'm blowing my chance to mod this discussion, but this troll was too much to pass up.)
Live free or Die! Our bandwidth is costing us what? Slashdot?! Quick, throw up some ads. We'll be rich!
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
From the link's left rail:
Wow! Slow updates. Actually, a more accurate date might be something like December 20, 1860.
:wq
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?
Easy whoring while helping people, what a combo :)
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
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.
And why is he buying all that Kansas real-estate?
"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.
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!
I went to college there (UND in Grand Forks).
It's relatively desolate - there are no real cities.
It's pretty hot in the summer - 90s most of July and August.
It's really cold in the winter - -40 windchill in january is not unheard of at all. -60 and below are relatively rare events, though. Blizzards galore!
It's extremely franchised. There is little room for people who wish to build their own concept - people would rather go to the Olive Garden in Fargo than their home-grown, superior Lola's.
People are kinda nice, though. Kinda funny looking in a general sort of way.
Stop the brainwash
because success would merit attention, and there are a heck of a lot more politically-wacko fundamentalist Christians in America than politically wacko geeks....
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
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.
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.
They should definately locate themselves in Mass. so that I don't have to relocate. Since I live in Mass. and would love to be a part of anything that improves this lame-ass country. Not that I'm too lazy to move out of Mass. I guess.... I should probably read the article to makes sure it's not a lame-ass plan though.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
Vermont, that little liberal bastion of the North, may be a good choice.
Here are a few reasons:
1 Small Population (about half a million), so a group of dedicated citizens can have an effect.
2 Open minded politics already exist. For example, Vermont recognizes Civil Unions between homosexual couples and the state uses an inovative and effecitve plan buy perscription drugs at reduced cost (also known as Canada).
3 Enviromentally friendly state.
4 Large producer of high quality pot.
Of course, Vermont is currently doing quite well, some othere states could use this groups efforts quite a bit more.
Thinking is good, I think.
Also know as Puerto Rico. I would consider moving there rather than some desolate wasteland. Besides, learning to code in spanish may prove interesting.
ent main( ent argc, car argv[] )
{
impresionf( "Hola el Mundo!" );
regresa NUL;
}
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Ted Knight was right when he said "The world needs ditch diggers too." There will be a ton of other smart guys out there.
:)
And let's not forget what happens when you have too many geeks moving to one place and intermarrying
one hundred twenty
is just enough characters
to write a haiku
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.
We'll just send them right back to you.
New York's weirdo quota has already been filled, thank you.
Their free state seems to have been slashdotted. Shortest regime ever.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
We believe... ...that government's only role should be to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.
:)
I guess they'll have a tough time getting around their free state without roads. Maybe they could have toll roads, but it could be difficult to find something to barter with the toll road operator for passage...
But then, they probably all own Hummers fully equipped for the eminent takeover by UN
You're forgetting that only about half of the eligible population votes at all. There is little doubt that they could get at least a congressional district with this many people.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
This won't work for the very simple reason that if 20,000 geeks move to one area, unless we're going to take turns flipping the burgers, cleaning the gum off the movie theatre floor, and removing the trash, tens of thousands of other people to do those things are going to be required.
It'll be just like the Silicon Valley, only colder.
paintball
I think Montana might offer special value packages to those who wish to create their own autonomies states. You get a compound, some rifles, a 'no trespassing' sign, a box of beards, some triple X moonshine, and your very own state name (only valid in Montana).
PS: Does this remind anyone else of "Newfreeland" from Mr. Show on HBO?
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
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.
I think that whatever state is chosen is in danger. If geeks flood the state and take over, won't they die out in 30-50 years? I mean, most geeks don't get any- much less procreate.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
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
If they legalize gambling, prostitution, pot, and xbox mods...
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
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?
But you forget that almost nobody really cares about proposal Z or who the dog catcher is. The low voter turnout enables a unified minority to rule the majority.
Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape
From the FAQ... (my deletes are [...]
:-)
Q. What states are you considering, and on what criteria?
A. [...]The following states are under consideration: [...] North Dakota, South Dakota, [...] Montana, [...] Idaho, [...]
Other important criteria include: 1) coastal access [...]
www.christopherlewis.com
- 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!
One interesting aspect of the world is the fact that everything is owned. There is no land that isn't owned by some country (not counting Antarctica, which is "unownable" by international treaty, as I understand it). So it's not like you can up and go start your own country. You'd have to find some land, and wrest control away from someone; and the people who are already there (or at least own it legally, e.g. uninhabited tiny islands out in the middle of the ocean) will generally not be real keen on that.
What happens if the entire population (or at least an overwhelming majority) of one of the U.S. states decides to secede? Well, it happened once before, and we had a nasty civil war about it. So what would it take for a state to secede *legally*? Would a constitutional amendment do it? Or just an act of Congress?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I remember when some crazy fools tried to pull this up in Oregon a while back. It went bad faster than salmon pate left out overnight.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
I would wager a guess that it would be cheaper and easier to establish a rapport with a smaller, third-world country who would allow these people to make all the social and economic changes they may want.
Or... they might not because they only want the benefits of living in the United States, meanwhile shirking any responsibilities that our society places on its citizens. Like it or not, the US government isn't a giant conspiracy organization. It's made up of people, that we know, and we elect. When we don't like how someone is doing, we elect someone else. The larger the group, the more inertia there is, but stability is also increased.
How long before a few of those 20,000 people starts bitching that someone is taking things from his garden and the group creates some rules, then a small police force, some judges, and then a punishment system?
It's been done. They called themselves Puritans.
However, the basic idea is quite viable for those who generally feel constrained by the rules of society. This idea would not work with people such as scumbags/crooks who live outside society's rules, but for libertarian geeks and cryonicists, this might work.
I myself have recommended on the cryonet mailing list that cryonicists do this at the county level, and all move to Loving County, Texas, which has a population of about 100 or so. THey could effectively control the county. How much good that would do, I don't know.
Now, for more power, e.g., a state to "take over", there is Oregon, of course, which appears to be the most libertarian, progressive state available. For example, they have legal structure in place already to allow euthanasia for teh terminally ill, which could be a tremendous boon for cryonicists (or for anyone who does not want to die a lingering painful death when terminally ill). Also, there are the marijuana initiatives which recur periodically in Oregon.
In fact, Oregon is set up for "Power to the People", as opposed to states like Texas, which are set up for Power to the Rich/Corps., etc.
H
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
Pffft.
Armed conflict is the only legal means of establishing a free state within the United States (or, perhaps, to be declared a protected Native tribe.)
And this high-minded idealism is idiotic to the extreme. It will be a "free" state you say... in opposition to the totalitarian regime of the US Federal government? And how will this society remain free? Communal governance? Direct Democracy? Good luck with that.
Yes, it is, but go to San Francisco for an example of how to blatantly ignore federal narcotics legislation. The local and state police don't even help the feds bust people. They tend to concentrate more on real crime.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Lets say the state of question is North Dakota. From whom would they need protection from? Saskatchewan - the war mongers that they are.
They only need 5,000 to make a location choice.
Let's use the power of Slashdotting to their advantage. Everyone sign up, so we can vote, and let's see how far we can send these boneheads packing.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
It is important to note that the freedom of speech as guranteed in the constitution has been interpretted by the supreme court to not protect seditious speech. Now, any call to subvert control of federal mandate is seditious by definition and as such the speech can be regulated by the fedral government. This seems to be a major stumbling block to any plan to form an independant government on what is currently US soil, I.E. Waco, Ruby Ridge, and other similar sepratist movements.
it's unfortunate too, because the major problems with the US could be solved by simply dissolving the US into several smaller cooperating countries similar to the EU, and then have a small coalition government to help negotiate trade and "international" matter between the countries. D.C. politicians cannot fairly represent my SF East Bay lifestyle and opinions. Fair and accurate governmental representation is key to having a satisfied populous.
*note* I'm not very good at spelling, please ignore spelling and gramatical errors and read the actual message.
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
Hoth?
But seriously, it would be more practical to found a new city in a sparsely populated zero-state-income-tax state and leave it at that. Build your apartment blocks, fiber-to-the-home networks, windmill/solar/nuclear power plants, decent public infrastructure in general (ie, roads designed to last, rail lines to the nearest major city/airport), and see who else decides to show up and build out the territory surrounding the city. Most of that infrastructure can be privately run, natch. If the cost of living stays low enough you'll minimize your radar signature to the federal government (lower pay but lower expenses == less federal tax paid and the same quality of life).
Until Armadillo Aerospace figures out how to do cheap space launches so we can build lunar colonies and/or terraform Mars, this will have to do.
Yes, but on any given issue less than half of those 1.5M will vote allowing the extra 20K of votes to make a bigger difference.
Well, I fully support this move to Kansas. Come one come all. Infact, in support, I will live in Wichita, Kansas. Really, there is a lot of greatness to be found in Kansas -- its a sleeper state. There is a lot of room here for whatever you want. The temperatures go from tropical to artic all in a week! Its a great place to live.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
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!".
What can be done in a single state? A great deal. We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs.
I know that lots of political spending is horribly wasteful, but what are they going to do about the kind of programs that help poor old people afford heat during the winter? I'm sure they have a plan, but I didn't see it mentioned anywhere.
We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws.
It is the courts' job to decide what is constitutional, right?
We will repeal laws regulating drugs and guns.
Are these folks backed by a cartel? Want to see drugs and guns in one place? Visit Columbia or Jamaica.
We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and monopolies.
Privitization can be great. Just ask California how they like privatized electric utilities.
Then we will negotiate directly with the federal government for more autonomy
Good luck. I am sure they will take it seriously.
-- Windows is not simply installed on a computer; it is inflicted.
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.
Yeah, but they still write speeding tickets...
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
The homogenization of america is not a foregone conclusion... yet.
Their usual name is Utopia.
They may differ in ideologies and objectives but the large majority ends quite badly.
The most ancient Utopia seems to have been the half-mytical Atlantis.
The most well known Utopia of Ancient Times was Sparta.
Roman Empire died to a religious Utopia of Armageddon and Salvation.
In Middle Ages there were several Utopias like the Albigois of Provence, the Templars.
Mongol Empire was an Utopia.
American Revolutions nearly started several Utopia States, some of its remains echo till now in the US and, partially, in South America.
Utah was pratically an Utopia in its first years.
French Revolution was a pure Utopia State.
October Revolution was the biggest, largest and most monumental Utopia ever.
Nazi Germany and several other regimes were Utopias.
Singapore still heirs a lot of its Utopia foundation.
Apart of this. There is certain data that points to the fact that Maya could be an Utopia. Also some strange tales of a certain ancient kingdom in what is now Spain point also to an Utopia. Many eurasian tales point to vanished city-states and countries that remind a lot Utopias, ex. the Huns, the Assassins, Turan, Shambala, etc.
What was the problem of these Utopias? They could have started well and with clear ideals. However, dogmatism and fanatism overcome. They tried to remain up to their ideals no matter the conditions and realities. Some Utopias vanished quite fast and they couldn't even manage to leave anything for history. Others could live for some time, basing its force on the economical power and resources of a nation. However the large majority ended tragically. Almost all Utopias tend to isolate themselves from everything that doesn't fit their dogmas. On one point of their History, the balance between their ideals and environment was so unequal that they were simply crunched to dust. Among them, there are only a few structures that manage to survive as they started to interact with the world, ex. the Jewish-Christian-Islamic canonical religions, the modern communist parties, The United States of America, The French Republic, Russian Federation, People's Republic of China and several others. For some this may look as if a big part of our world is Utopia based. It is. However, they are just a tiny fraction of the hundreds of Utopias that Mankind rised.
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.
The weather isn't all that bad, easy access to Canada when you have to flee for your lives and theres a fair amount of industrial and agricultural base built in both states, but the population is still small enough that you might have some impact if you are able to grow that 20,000 to a few hundred thousand over time.
Or how about Alaska? Yes its cold, but you've got oil and gold among other natural resources, if you can get the equipment to drill through the permafrost to get at it.
Personally though, I just don't see this working out no matter what State they go for, you just can't get that many people to work together for that long.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Camel Pilot said: "Lets say the state of question is North Dakota. From whom would they need protection from? Saskatchewan - the war mongers that they are."
Oh, but Camel Pilot, the reason all the nasty terrorists hate us is because we're free. Not because of our involvement in their conflicts, not because of various complicated economic and socio-political reasons... no, no. Because we're free! A free state would be the PRIMARY target for terrorarism!
Conch Republic ring a bell? Although the story of the Conch Republic is a bit more on the amusing side.
The Libertarians and Greens could team up. Oh well.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Yeah, nice idea but does kind of remind me of the bit in Hitchhiker's GTTG where that planet gets rid of all its telephone sanitation engineers and then a year later everybody promptly dies of a disease spread by dirty telephones.
Nice idea but don't just take geeks...
They better go in with some cash and buy up media outlets.
Newspapers, Radio, and Television could eliminate the voting power of 20k on a monday morning whim. Think about it...just paint them as some sort of extremist, then claim anyone and anything they endorse is out to take away prescription drugs or *gasp* harm the education of our children.
...don't drink the Kool-aid.
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
If they want autonomy from the US federal government, they can move to another country. There are several countries out there, especially in Europe, that are still independant and irresponsive to US pressure on most issues, in a variety of styles. Places like Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, France come to my mind. Of English-speaking places, Ireland is probably the only one not to be a de-facto US colony.
Taking over a single state by moving a lot of like-minded people into it seems like some kind of evil scheme from the Twilight Zone, even if the goal is positive (right, like it won't be corrupted somewhere along the way). This plan seems overly complicated, risky, and unlikely to succeed with only one state involved (remember what happened the last time a bunch of states tried to break away from the US?). I know I'm not willing to move somewhere just to be part of someone's pet project.
Instead, I propose a geek breeding program that will aim to increase the percentage of freedom-demanding geeks in the US to a level that will give them political power that could rival the MPAA/RIAA/Microsoft/etc. This will give geeks control at the state and federal levels, and will allow geeks to stay where they are (though some areas might be better left ungeekified).
Now, I realize that this won't be easy. It would require recruiting a large number of females to the geek cause of course, and they would also have to be encouraged to have sex with geeks. In the beginning, it may be necessary to have multiple partners in order to build up a large enough genetic base to prevent genetic abnormalities. Similarly, different types of geeks would need to interact in order to keep the deficiencies of particular geek types in check. Still, I think more than a few geeks would be willing to take a chance on this program just because of the prospect of having sex.
Sure, some geeks might not need or even want the help of such a breeding program, but everyone will need to make sacrifices if this is going to work. This is a better world we're talking about here, not just for us, but also for our children and our children's children. This sort of thing isn't going to just happen on its own, we will all have to band together in our common cause of helping geeks get laid, um, I mean freedom! Yeah, freedom, that's the real reason, sure...
(The above does not constitute an endorsement of any of the ideas expressed above. All stereotypes mentioned above are for hypothetical use only and are not intended as an accurate description of any individual or group of individuals. The author takes no responsibility for the results of the attempted implementation of the ideas expressed above, as they are provided for entertainment use only. Interpretations of the above may vary, please allow 6 to 8 weeks before deciding that your interpretation is accurate. All complaints should be formally typed, notarized, and deposited in the nearest trash receptacle. Any females interested in this program should contact the author directly. Any females offended by this program should reconsider their feelings until they can appreciate the creative value of the above, at which time they should contact the author directly. Please be willing to relocate to the state of the author's residence. There are no disclaimers beyond this point. Author reserves the right to place additional disclaimers beyond this point.)
Why not take over a Canadian state, then make it part of the US? Seriously, with an army of ~20,000 a group could easily annex part of Canada.
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
There was a proposal to do something like this by setting up a brand new country, on the assumption that no existing country would ever allow this to happen within their borders. The new country was to be called Oceania, and was to be built in the Carribeans. There is also a FAQ for it.
If at first you don't secede
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?
As Republican as it comes and don't let our "Live Free or Die" motto fool you: Judd Gregg tried to do cute things like make encryption restricted and ram through the USA Act in the light of September 11th. Thankfully, both failed, but running with this, the "free" rarely refers to much more than "tax-free" these days.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Migration for the purpose of seizing political power frequently results in violence. Its ironic that Kansas is mentioned considering the history of "bloody Kansas".
Brief recap, Kansas was going to have a vote on whether or not to allow slavery, which would also determine the delicate balance of political power between those for and against slavery in the Congress. Partisans on both sides rushed in to qualify for the vote, low intensity civil warfare ensued.
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.
Sounds more like some refugee drug lords from Colombia would like a new place where they can run a drug/military op without government interference.
Oh and that monopoly thing... Somebody must have skipped a whole lot of economics class to believe all monopolies are bad. *Well* regulated monopolies for basic utilities is far more cost effective. Do you really think that five different systems of water supply pipes, or five different systems of sewage pipes for each house makes things better, even if there is competition?
No. OF course regulating this is a tricky thing, but certainly I've seen cases where the situation got *worse* after opening up for "competition" because the marked is a natural monopoly, a far more inefficent thing than a regulated monopoly. If these people don't see the difference, good luck.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Something tells me John Ashcroft is behind the whole plan.
"So we can take 20,000 of the most free thinking individuals in this country and put them all in one place?"
(tents hands and smiles wryly)
"Excellent."
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
.
/.
First - How pro Freedom are these folks if they are willing to invade a state enmass and over ride the wishes of the previous residents?
I wouldn't want to be a part of it.
Second - Ever hear of a little place called the Alamo?
Read a couple of history books before you commit to a scheme.
Texas started out this way. Good idea (I guess), bad result.
The world's a lot more dangerous than it was back then.
Let me propose a better suggestion.
Stay where you are and organize, communicate, and activate.
Moving out is only going to make those who oppose your freedom stronger.
Set and example by setting up an 802.11 AP and take your notebook out to the front yard while trolling
(wokka wokka)
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
they seem to be overlooking the fact that not everyone votes.
Sure, normally people are complacent. I suspect a lot more people would turn out at the polls if local media started reporting that a bunch of unemployed* lunatics from California** had moved in and were plotting to take over***.
* the FAQ indicates that they've looked at "weather" and "liberty-lovingness of the natives" when considering states but I didn't see any mention of "job market can absorb sudden appearance of 20,000 nerds".
** or other creative paper-selling interpretation of "libertarian".
*** and, hey, this part of the story would even be true.
"The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
"Oooh a sarcasm detector! Now that's a useful invention!"
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Hooray for the Dakota Carrier Network!
LOL. I hope this is a joke or sarcasm. Surely you don't really believe Bush's moronic feel-good analysis of Bin Laden's motives. Obviously, these guys are not some kind of rabid marxists out to destroy any hint of non-marxist countries. I don't know exactly what their motives are, but it is certainly not "to attack whatever country is the most free". We might not even qualify for that title anymore anyway. Hence the motivation for the FSP.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
It sounds like it's close to the society created in Atlas Shrugged, and for the same reasons. If it's anything like that, I'm there. I just hope that they pick a good state, like Maine. I can't wait to read more once the site isn't Slashdotted any more.
For those of you who haven't read Atlas Shrugged, the basic premise is that the government sucks, and there are a group of people who are good at what they do and they move to a hidden place where they can live happily. It boils down to capitalism isn't being allowed to flourish under the federal government (like what we have now). Large, successful companies are branded as "monopolies" and are punished. People who invent things have those things taken away from them "for the greated good". It's all about being able to do what you love, what you're good at, and being properly rewarded for it. Of course, the society that they create is fantastic, and the US begins to fall apart as the government becomes more and more socialist.
Quite honestly, I'm surprised that this hasn't happened before. Of course in the book, the leaders of the successful, profitable, and useful companies are charismatic, idealistic people. Most of the current large companies are fairly generic.
If this is what the organizers are going for, then this will *not* be popular with most Slashdotters. Freedom, at least according to Ayn Rand, is all about the freedom to do what you want to do, and to be rewarded for it. It's actually the exact opposite of the Open Source, Free Software movement.
No.
It is protected speech. It is perhaps the most important reason for most of the Bill Of Rights.
A society which cannot tolerate dissent is doomed to minority. Insert comparative religion analogy based on degree of permitted religious scholarship here.
-- Terry
Limit on governmental power can safeguard
the liberties. That is what they would
like to achieve. What's the problem?
Considered harmful.
The Constitution clearly states that the federal government can only do those things that it has been explictly empowered to do and by extension things related to those. It is reasonable to establish more branches of the military as the military is explicitly federal. However the US Constitution does not grant any general authority for the US Government within the borders of the states. The "necessary and proper clause" only applies to those areas that the US Government already has jurisdiction which are in reality few and far between.
Did anyone ever open up Field and Stream again?... last I heard it had been closed for awhile. Minot also has Applebees, which spread thruout North Dakota like the plague in the early 1990s.
And then there's the almost monopolistic hold on the Bismarck/Minot grocery stores by the Barlow family...
All in all, it's a pretty nice area. But only if you like peace and quiet. It's not a place for the "d00d wherez da scene??" crowd.
Oh yeah, this sounds like a great idea. If you thought the Slashdot trolls were annoying, just wait until you LIVE in Slashdot.
Why not key west? They had the conch republic down there already!!
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
...worst autocrat ever
they will not agree on every issue. they agree that the federal goverment should stay out--that's one issue. that's the issue that brings them together.
take roe vs. wade as a basic example. you can be as pro-choice as they come and still believe (correctly) that the federal government has no constitutional right to forbid states from outlawing abortion within their borders. the problem is that it takes integrity to see the distinction. few people will fight to stop the federal government from doing something they agree with, regardless of the constitution.
char *mySig;
The ensuing disaster of epic proportions would make the greatest reality TV show ever!
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Yes, but Vermont, and other NE states, are quite liberal. That wouldn't be a good match for a bunch of liberatarians.
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.
And what if the federal government says that jaywalking is okay, but a municipal government says it's illegal?
Laws don't create exceptions from other laws, they just prohibit more behaviors. If the federal government forbids something, the state may not allow it, and vice versa. Now, the government system is supposed to be structured so that areas of responsibility don't overlap, but (as you might expect) theory and practice started diverging before the ink dried on the constitution. In areas of overlapping responsibility you must obey the restrictions of each level involved, which tends to reduce your freedom.
So even if the state government has the power to enact any law on those within its borders, it can do nothing to protect its citizens' freedoms from the regulation of the federal government. At best, it can decline to add further restrictions.
So I think it's a foregone conclusion that this will not have any great effect.
On the other hand, it would be pretty cool to gather with 20,000 like-minded people in one city, for the cultural possibilities alone.
Think about it. 20K is a very small percentage of the entirety of the US. If you looked hard you could probably frind 20K people somewhere in the US who would agree with 100% of the issues listed on the website. You could also likely get all of these people to vote as a consistent block (just look at how much power Unions have).
In the long run, there would, of course, be issues that not all 20K agreed on, and certainly as time went on this population of die hards would become dilluted. But I think it's well within reason for this group of people to come together and do it if they believe it can be done.
This plan has huge mounds of idealism piled onto it, but I think a fair portion of the idealism isn't completely ludicrous. On the other hand there are some parts that are more questionable. There will need to be taxes, and in all likelihood, they'd have to be rather high relative to most other locales because they may lose federal funding. It may be possible to structure these taxes differently though to provide a better return on investment, etc. There's a lot that can be done to improve how government functions if you can start with a clean slate.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
> I think Don Marti was also the one who thought the geeks should do this by moving en masse to North Dakota.
North Dakota? I spent a few years in Buffalo and that was bad enough.
Why can't we take over Hawaii? Now THAT would be the place for our "Free State"!
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Ayn Rand may be a good spokesman, but :-), but
she's not much of a philosopher (or
an economist). Some of the phrases of her
mouthpieces in the fiction would make for a
rousing (or at least good) political speech
(even the somewhat corny exaltation of
gold, cigarettes, dollar signs or
d'Anconia's full name; but then she is
not much of an aesthete
they lack the depth. A brilliant
oration cannot have the analytical profundity
of a boring research paper; and so she, in fact,
who champions fact over feeling, reverts to
arousing people's feelings rather than thoroughly
stating the facts. But I don't think Hayek or
Mill have as many knee-jerk followers (though
they do have enough).
Take Atlas Shrugged. It celebrates
capitalism, but it never shows capitalists
who pollute the environment, say, endangering
other people's lives. It doesn't ponder the
capitalist's dependent on the government - no,
not for the egregious things, there are
plenty of caricature "Bad" guys there, but
consider governmental protection of IP. What
would Rand say were someone to reverse-engineer
Rearden Metal? Would Rearden run to gov't
for protection and scream that he deserved
the fruits of his labor? Those are just 2
examples, there are so many more...
Considered harmful.
I haven't read the page yet, as the site isn't responding but...
These guys evidently think you can make a perfect society with less than perfect human beings.
It needn't be perfect, just better. Or even just different.
I am the founder and president of the Free State Project, so I thought I'd stop by to clear some things up.
First, if you are anti-libertarian and in favor of intrusive government, it is natural that you will oppose us, especially if we decide to come into your state. However, even if we are coming into your state, you can in no wise consider this a "takeover." As others have pointed out, 20,000 activists aren't sufficient to simply outvote everyone else in any state. They ARE enough, however, to make libertarian ideas relevant and to apply significant pressure to politicians. (Remember, these are not just voters, but activists.) We believe that once we have succeeded in doing these things, most of the populace will vote for our ideas. After all, we have a welfare-warfare state not because people clamored for it, but essentially through inertia: rising incomes have allowed politicians to increase taxation and regulation gradually without causing an outcry. 20,000 activists in a small state will be enough to put libertarian ideas and candidates on everyone's mind. So if you're a statist, you shouldn't fear the Free State Project, unless you fear a straight confrontation between rival ideologies in the public square.
Second, nothing about what we are doing is remotely illegal. We are working peacefully through the political process to achieve liberty at the state and local levels and to push for true federalism as demanded by the U.S. Constitution. This has nothing to do with "compounds," Jim Jones, or militias. Those of you making such ill-informed comments display a mindset that is extremely dangerous for democracy: apparently you would rather have your political opponents killed than to engage them in dialogue. Shame on you!
Finally, if you are a libertarian, I would point out that the Free State Project seems to be the most - nay, the only - viable strategy for liberty in our lifetimes. If we continue to squander our resources trying to bring Washington, D.C. to the light, nothing will change. We must concentrate our resources to achieve political reforms, and the Free State Project is the first credible strategy for doing so. Check out the website (the server should be doing a little better now) and examine our plans in depth. We feel that the precise process, including obtaining signatures before the move, researching the location, and holding a membership vote, make this project likely to succeed where others have failed.
http://www.freestateproject.org
Jesse Ventura's election was not strange at all. With two very poor candidates running for the democrats and republicans, the voters decided not simply elect for the lesser of two evils.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
Now I don't want to jog anyone's memory here, but the last time we had people that wanted to "drop out of the system" was around the 1860s was it not?
Someone please jog my memory about how that plan worked out... I can't remember.
Also, if you want to turn a portion of the US into a "federal free zone" then you will become the new federal crimes enterprise zone and also the federal fugitives haven zone as well, leaving you with a federal crime problem that no one (especially the ones that don't want to *gasp* PAY for a non-regulated police force) to mop up all of the immoral acts that no one is enforcing.
Honestly, just move to the country people. If you mind your own business, most people will leave you alone. But honestly, if this is about the fact that you want to smoke weed, have an issue with pre-ban magazines on assault rifles, or generally just don't want to pay taxes, then I would suggest moving to Afghanistan. You can pretty much do what you want to there. Y'know.
Keep in mind that lawlessness is a great idea.
But only if you're paranoid, self-sufficient, unfriendly, armed to the teeth, healthy enough and disciplined enough to not need high technology, and and don't mind losing a child or two to the occasional resource raid.
Hmmm. WHERE DO I SIGN UP?!?
I assume that the goernment is already out to get them - by getting their site slashdotted they are saying "Down with the separatists! [website]"
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
"Greetings from the Lord Humongous... The warrior of the wasteland... the ayatollah of rock and rollah!"
I was always pretty partial to the Oceania idea, but now it has been abandoned (http://www.oceania.org/end.html) for the same reason the Free State Project isn't going to work -- Libertarians just don't have the resources. It takes money and lots of support to make it work.
Most people aren't willing to vote with their feet and move elsewhere, even when the outcome is certain. I know if I move to Las Vegas, people have a more libertarian outlook, but that's not enough reason to move.
If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal -- Jello Biafra
why don't we get 20k people together and oppose them on every issue?
c'mon, it'd be worth it just to see the looks on their faces!
Just raise the taxes on crack.
"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
My guess is that even if they're successful guaranteeing things like the DMCA can't be enforced in some state, the rest of the US will just prevent them from access to such content. Kind of like if child porn or something was hosted in SeaLand, Britain would just cut them off upstream. You're always going to be censored on some level.
$45 per U Colocation Special
They intend to eventually achieve "political autonomy", that is, to become free of federal law after a time. It sounds like a "peaceful rebellion", like the Southern Secession was supposed to be.
There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
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.
As a Vermont resident:
(I don't have the generations in the dirt to qualify as a Vermonter.)
There's so much emphasis on the Evils of the Federal Government, but the same crowd doesn't talk about the Evils of Corporatism. Likewise the folks who talk about the Evils or Corporatism don't generally talk about the Evils of the Federal Government.
IMHO, neither side is completely right - or completely wrong. You've got to balance your poisons, and for the most part I like the balance that has been struck in Vermont.
We are in the process of electing not to participate in the Federal "education reform", bypassing the funding to go our own way - a potentially painful decision, but being taken with eyes wide open.
We were the last state to get a Wal Mart.
We are the only state without a McDonald's in the capital city.
We took away Dubya's majority in the Senate, as the Rebuplican party drifted too far to the Christian Right. (My brother holds that the Christian Right isn't conservative - they're liberal with a different set of values.)
It's a balancing act.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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
Oops - corrected url for lexrex (cut and paste was too greedy). Sorry.
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...
This just in: it appears that Oobleck has reached the finals in Solo Mental Gymnastics--Freestyle Event. Starting with "Wouldn't it be nice if my neighbors shared my views on important political issues, and we all voted", this incredible athlete vaulted an amazing distance, to land squarely in "we're a compound-living, arms-stockpiling, demagogue-worshipping cult, based on the teachings of a madman, and eligible for government antiterroist action".
This unbelievable leap, executed without any intermediate steps, has broken world records, and is virtually guaranteed to win Oobleck the gold this year. The sheer audacity of the maneuver is sure to win the hearts of many moderators here today. Let's wish this great athlete the best of luck.
Good luck to you, Oobleck!
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
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.
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'd like to suggest that they move to one of the Gulf states. Without them gub'mint satellites invadin' their privacy, the rest of us can just wait until the next big-ass hurricaine shows up and catches them clueless (more than usual, that is).
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
I believe south carolina and a bunch of other rag-tag states tried this awhile back. Its called seceeding from the union, and I dont thenk the federal government would be down with that. No state can opt out of federal laws.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
"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"
:)
:)
Yes, until some president will decide to bomb them because they settle a danger for the entire nation he's leading. Imagine the fun if this 'president' won't be the US president, but some other nation's president! Maybe their political autonomy will lead to things that are considered unfair and dangerous in a muslim nation. Now what..?
ok just kidding. But the idea is fun anyway... it shows how the uncontent people in the US aren't really willing to moving anywhere... they will wait and be quiet until things are gone bananas.
yes, I'm trolling.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
While I agree with much of what you say, I'm in favor of keeping the Libertarians around.
Y'see, politicians don't much like to take a stand on, or discuss issues that stray too far from the centrist view. Thus, the scope of political debate can become more and more narrow. We need the vocal lunatic fringes to raise the issues, and give the mainstream politicians an opportunity to talk about such issues, yet seem reasonable and moderate compared to the lunatic fringe.
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.
Ok, ignoring all the other silliness, 20,000 people is a small city... Not a state. What state in America would allow 20,000 outsiders to move in an take over?
This would not happen since it wouldn't be a welfare state. The places with the biggest drug problems are coincidentially also the biggest nanny states. They won't be setting these people up at the Hilton at the taxpayers expense.
Drug laws do not stop drugs as it is. So why isn't 70% of the population using illegal drugs now.
Ending drug prohibition would only decrease the flow of drugs. Answer yourself, why do so many people risk their lives to bring drugs into this country? Because the money is worth the risk. If drugs would, say as cheap as cigarettes, you wouldn't see 'mules' carrying drugs in their stomach and people literally dying to cross the border. Not to mention putting money in the hands of murders, aka so-called Drug Cartels.
Drug laws have been in affect for years and drug use is on the rise.
Besides it's none of your business what someone else is doing.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
Bizarre personal biases aside, you'll notice that the flavor of the vast majority of discussions on Slashdot is negative. Set up *any* sort of plan, position, or proposition in front of this crowd and they'll delight in telling you that it sucks, it'll never work, and here's why.
(Then again, this is hardly unique to Slashdot.)
My guess is that the Feds will find something unpleasant to do about this if they succeed, ranging from cutting off subsidy programs required to keep local infrastructures going to sending in tanks.
If they succeed, what I expect people to do to each other will be even more interesting. Someone said "where we can paint our house whatever color we please". Seems to be that the Libertarian philosophy that allows everything to be subject to contract would allow housing associations to pass restrictive covenants that make current city ordinances of the idiotic variety look benign.
What happens in an economic downturn with no safety net? 20K geeks with no local employment and no welfare make an interesting combination. The pure pursuit of any ideology doesn't guarantee economic prosperity.
What happens when local infrastructure becomes part of an unprotected commons where the only contributions to keep the streets paved are voluntary? What happens to schools when most people don't have kids? What happens to libraries when the people who dominate local politics are content with their own personal book collections? What happens when a major corporation decides to take advantage of no local anti-pollution laws, and hires a mercenary force to protect its facilities from shutdown when the locals make some?
What happens when every local service only exists as long as there are people who directly and immediately benefit from it?
I'm not arguing that the people working with this project shouldn't do it, I'd like to see it happen. And I hope that whatever else goes down in Montana, the Net stays up, because I want to see lots of reporting on the results. I could be wrong about this, perhaps people really are responsible enough to make it work.
Tech Public Policy stuff
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."
not going to have New York. sorry.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
I consider myself liberty-oriented, but the people who consider themselves really liberty oriented scare me.
It might just be my perception, but it seems like people on the small ends of the bellcurve always think having guns is the final answer to their problem.
When you go enough standard deviations away from the normal curve, all you'll find are unusual deviants. sadly, they're so different, and yet so firm in their convictions, that their solution usually involves owning a lot of guns and canned goods.
Me, I'm happy moving to a state that just shifts enough over that I feel like people are more like me, and I don't get looked at askance for voting Democrat or thinking a war with Iraq doesn't make sense and might be unjust. that's why San Francisco's the place for me.
The people there are just deviant enough.
Whatever their grievance, the more standard deviations you go
Kevin Fox
Some of those things, like
- pave their interstate highways
we'll want, although we'll probably expect those to be speed-limit free toll roads. Other things, like
- provide accurate time bases for their devices
- keep the GPS birds flying
- keep stronger out-of-state entities from swamping their wireless frequencies
we think that individuals could probably do themselves, if there's a real need for such things. Or, for things like protection of wireless frequencies, perhaps we could find remedy in contract law, rather than federal regulation. After all, for the state to manage these things, we have to presume that the state owns them. Finally,
- back their currency so that they can do commerce with other states and countries
- prevent their utility companies from gouging them
are things which we explicitly would not want the government to do "for" us. Only a fiduciary currency (paper money, not backed by anything other than the trust of the State) needs the "backing" of that state. As far as "prevent[ing] their utility companies from gouging them" goes, I can't even imagine a free people making that kind of Soviet request of their government. (Except perhaps in California, where it's been said that the best thing that can happen for them is to have economics textbooks airdropped over Sacramento. I suggest New Ideas From Dead Economists by Todd Buchholz.)
Pave the roads (maybe), keep the Canadians at bay. That's all that I really want from the State. Everything else, a free people can do on their own.
P.J. O'Rourke describes this approach to Libertarian philosophy as it relates to federal spending much more tidily in his essay Would You Kill Your Mother To Pave I-95?.
Carthago delenda est!
It will be the first time I've ever seen more than 6 libertarians agree on *ANYTHING*. Their endless nitpicking on semantics alone will be enough to keep this thing on hold for at least the next century.
What federal education system!
You said yourself that what takes up the dough is schools. This is because the feds have very little involvement in education. But, fine, the free state can opt out. Good for them, now their $10 can go to another state.
try to recruit a lot of good teachers for the required private schools.
Required private schools? If it's required then it isn't very libertarian, is it? And if it isn't state run, then how will the poor afford education?
I live in Illinois and the poor get a crummy education because of the way funding is done here. The state doesn't provide very much, it's up to each locality to fund. And guess what, the schools are much better in rich areas than poor.
A state with only private schools would be that much worse. A state with libertarians at the helm, yet still taxing for schools would be more self contradictory than Ghandi at a gun club.
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.
Why is it so wonderful to have the states interfere with my life and so terrible to have the feds do it?
As long as you're an adult and you can't inflict this on any kids I think you should be able to do anything to your damn self as you please. It shouldn't be a hostile takeover of an entire state. It would be fairer if you came together and bought some territory from some state+country, that is paid the current residents and the state+country it was in it's expected value + future cost to defend the new border from illegal immigration.
It would be important to shot anyone trying to cross out of the territory on sight so that they wouldn't export their less productive citizens to the US. They would of course have to give up their citizenship on entry, and put in escrow the cost of their possible reintegration into society if they wanted a visa to visit the US + pay Visa processing costs + taxes for the days they planned to spend in the US. The escrow would be set by the state department officer that processed their visa, so that lower fees could be charged for a respectible person with a PhD than some down on their luck refugee.
Wouldn't it be easier to just move to some third world country without much of a government than try to buy land from one of the richest countries in the world? I'm ignoring the hostile takeover of a state because that's just wrong. Or, maybe find a down on their luck indian tribe that will accept 10 billion a head to leave or accept you as voters. Probably the cheapest solution, you would only have to bargain with the US Government for air rights and entry rights with your new passports after you renounced US Citizenship.
If the wolves make the laws, the sheep know what's for dinner. The California energy system was never privatized. It was differently regulated. And as we can all see now, badly regulated.
You don't seem to understand that monopolies are not bad, per se. It is monopoly pricing that is bad. And in a free market, a monopoly has a very hard time sustaining monopoly pricing for any length of time. Said length being related to the cost of entry into a business.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Americans are not 55-45 on most of the issues that are mentioned in the article. More like 95-5; just think about how much vote Ralph Nader got last time. (I'm not suggesting any correlation between voting for him and supporting the free state, but I hope you get what I mean). Additionally people who are for princliples like that tend to flock to metropolitan areas; not exactly Montana. Nice idea to think about, but I'd much rather petition my local representatives.
There was a fellow I worked with. He went on and on and on about how he would manage the company. Wouldn't have made this or that mistakes, would have done this way or that.
One day he got his wish, he was made manager of a new division of the company. He got a team together and did everything his way. He did everything all the trade journals said you should to get quick, good results.
In one year, he had recreated every mistake that had been made. The only thing to his credit was that he done it in record time.
I think the Libertarian town would be a great experiment. I don't think it would be wildly successful, but it sure would be better filler for the news than getting hourly sniper reports between pondering how badly to crucify Martha Stewart.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
Canadian provinces can secede ... consider, say, Prince Edward Island, with a population of 138,000 spread over 5,600 square kilometers. That's a plausible province for this scheme. 20,000 determined people really could take it over.
... would you want a bunch of gun totin', right-wing Americans in your province messing up your nice, socialized medicine and sparkling clean streets? Neither would they, and since the right-wingers don't have any distinguishing marks, that probably rules out all of us who'd like to emigrate north.
...
Here I was looking at the real feasability of moving to Canada (BC) and/or at least having a summer home there to run to if things get really ugly here in the United People's States of America, and now you go suggesting a thing like this.
There's no way in hell they'll let any of us in now
Nice going
[/humor]
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Pitcain ( 25:05S, 130:00W ) has a population of only 44 souls at the moment, and is in desperate need of a population infusion of fit men and women of reproductive age. Consider this as a possible destination. Fletcher Christian did, and founded a dynasty.
I myself even run the ex-Libertarian mailing list, but I would move there for one reason only. 20,000 geeks in a concentrated area would allow me to open up a successful anime shop - letting me make my hobby into my business!
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
Except that these would be more like the Anti-Amish. Rather than shunning the modern world and its technology... well, you get the idea.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Don't want your type anyway, shut up and go play xbox.
Is Civilization available for the xbox?
I doubt it. They'd be largely a rabble- no discipline. A dedicated Iraqi soldier might well be capable of undertaking action tantamount to a suicide mission- call it self-sacrifice. What Libertarian would sacrifice himself for his fellows? The selfishness is a handicap in military terms. Somebody's gotta take point, even if it costs them personally. I don't see any of the Libertarians being really big on self-sacrifice- aren't they more about trying to invent a society in which nobody is ever asked, much less expected, to be altruistic?
Reverend Jones did just fine, at least for a little while...
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Seriously- it would be interesting. On the one hand, stuff like legalizing drugs would fly there if it flew anywhere. Also, I expect that even after the debacle with California energy deregulation, there is still support for doing more of it- that didn't come out of nowhere. The fact that it was a disaster only shows that the concept doesn't work, it does NOT mean there aren't people still willing to try it some more, so that's a point in California's favor.
On the downside, California has already had some problems (SMOG!) so badly that special regulations were made just for it. Cal emissions standards are the toughest around- if you wanted to go there and get rid of all the emissions regulations, I bet the auto makers would love you, but the chances of accomplishing it are pretty bad: those emissions standards are there because people were tired of CHOKING on their air, and the free market would not solve that or see it as a problem. Same thing happened in Chile when they tried it- babies in hospitals on respirators, that kind of thing. Though I suppose you could privatize the hospitals too and let Darwin take the babies born to poor families.
Your problem is basically that libertarianism tends to scorch the earth- therefore the places which have a history of that kind of deregulation are the places where people remember what happens.
Mind you, there are places of a like mind where people refuse to NOTICE or acknowledge the simple truth. Why don't you all go to Houston? Enron may not be hiring, but apparently Houston has always been that way. A catastrophic real estate collapse that reduced most Houstonites to paupers did not change the nature of the place, so you probably can't either. Go there, they'd like you guys.
This is not all that unlike what the Puritans and other groups tried to do: move en masse to a place where they were free to live the way they wanted and create a more utopian society.
Too bad it didn't work: they had kids, and their kids didn't behave the way they wanted them to.
Besides, if they do a good job and make the place nice to live in, everyone will want to move there and ruin it.
Trying to stamp them out only empowers them. Gives them desperation, an enemy, polarizes them. It's better to keep them around, give them a little input, keep them from accomplishing too much, pacify them. That's what a republic like ours is supposed to do. The Libertarians are a noisy small faction. By their own standards they should be crushed because they can't compete with the bigger political parties and platforms. Thankfully we don't use their standards, and so they need to be supported and kept around so their distinctive voice can continue to be heard. It's good for us, but more than that, it is The Right Thing, even if they're not very useful. It's what we do.
I realize this is subsidizing the Libertarians for partially altruistic reasons but I think they will tolerate that, just this once ;)
Oregon has some advantages over other states.
1) Very clean drinking water;
2) A lot of cheap electricity (about 40% of power is from the hydro and 1% is from nuclear vs 7% and 20% for the entire States).
3) Enormous tourist potential.
4) Being between California and Washington and cheaper helps the technology.
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
But if they did it on an island, they'd have to shell out for an army! And a navy! And an air force! Then they'd need an opressive government!
See, much better to seceede in a mid-west state where you can free-load off the US defence forces.
The shorter version: libertarians suffer from the same problems as Marxists. They've even got Rand to substitute for Lenin.
I am purposefully not revealing my own ideals in this discussion. I am playing devil's advocate simply because I think most of the ideas presented are VERY GOOD on paper, but not feasible in American society.
It is my opinion that the American public is NOT very responsible, nor respectful. And I believe it nearly impossible to pull off a "Free State" or Libertarian State in the US.
Although, Minnesota did elect a past WWF Wrastling Star to run their government; so anything is possible.
See also: Christian fundamentalists taking over US school boards.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Nobody's advocating sedition. Secession might be necessary, but that would only be if the federal government engages in, effectively, sedition.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
This definition applies to all constitutional ammendment attempts, as well.
-- Terry
First off, if you're going to reject federal mandate/law you run into a huge problem. Namely, Article 1, section 8 of the constitution grants cogress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrectioons and repeal Invasions" (emphasis added.)
Do you think congress/the federal government would simply stand by and watch laws be rejected? Or do you think they would construe laws that are contrary to federal mandate as an act of insurrection?
Yeah, a bunch of states basically tried this idea a long time ago. They were referred to as the "confederacy"... Yeah, that worked real well.
Why take 20,000 people when you could take 60,000 people and make your own state?? Don't like federal hiway taxes? Screw them! You have your own state! There's no size requirement for a state either. If there was, Rhode Island would've never made it into statehood.
So, get 60,000 of your closest, most personal, friends and move to a US territory! Write a state constitution, get 50% of the population (only 30,000!) to sign it, and viola! You're (with congressional approval) a state! Yay. Disobey federal mandate at own risk.
-Jokerghost
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.
Go ahead, but your libertarian soiety cannot work in the real world, people just arent responsible enough for it.
So when your state has the highest crime rates and lowest education standards blame yourself.
Fact is, you cannot educate the masses without public education, and you need police not militias, not to mention the more people are uneducated, the more crime you'll have, lets not forget about homelessness, and if you even think CEOs in your state will pay fair wages you are insane, so sure you sen programmers and upper level management guys can live there, but what about 90 percent of everyone else whos the working class? They depend on public schools, health care, and this safety net which you plan to get rid of.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
This is because you're ignorant of the facts.
The police do not protect people, they investigate crimes after the fact. They are not objective, they are agents of the prosecution (and so are judges these days- ever seen the ads "I sent more guys to death row last year than any other judge, reelect me!")
In a competitive environment the police would not be competing against each other, but for your business.
The only reason robocop was like that was because they were a state granted monopoly-- robocop is the ultimate expression of the current system. You think the cops don't have the same 4th directive? They commit crime all the time to protect each other in every city in the country.
And you want to KEEP them dishonest?
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Out of their list, I like New Hampshire the best. Their state motto is "Live Free Or Die" - how's that for the basis of a Free State Movement? I live in Massachusetts, and drive up to New Hampshire quite often. It's a remarkably nice state. Great, well-maintained highways, lots of natural resources and natural beauty, a (small) seacoast, and no sales tax. It's amazing, driving on the road from MA to NH, as soon as you cross over the NH line, the road switches from crap to just about perfect (except around Route 3 where they're doing some massive renovations).
Perhaps the parent meant required as in 'we will need them'. The truth is that if the FSP gets off the ground they're only going to succeed by forming the cadre for a political movement that would gain majority voter support if it were given a fair shot at running things. All this apocalyptic stuff isn't going to fly with the voters so it's not going to work and likely won't even be tried. What would work is adopting a 10 or 20 or 30 point program that increases freedom, increases jobs, improves the ability of individuals to make their own neighborhoods in the image that they would like to see, and generally cleans out the special interests who have been keeping good ideas bottled up in the state legislature.
Now *that* would be something that 20k committed advocates might be able to pull off in a small >1.5m population state. It's hardly utopian but it would certainly be a big improvement.
As the improvements start coming in real ways, I don't think those 20k activists would have to wait very long for others to come and support them in the next round.
It's called the freedom of association. Basically, you're free to associate with whomever you like, and likewise you're free to NOT associate with whomever you like.
You can't say that you value personal freedoms and then go out and make certain viewpoints or opinions illegal. So racists are free to be racist (as long as they don't try to use force against those they choose to hate) and the rest of us are free to consider them morons.
... law enforcement is already in part corporate run. Highway Robbery, Inc is a subsidiary owned by states and counties; they are funded by our tax dollars and inflict additional taxes on us - driving taxes.
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
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.
These people will never win elections and pass new laws w/ 20,000 people, even in unpopulated states, without counting on the usual apathetic voter turnout. Voters are apathetic because politicians are typically stupid and their aspirations are of little consequence (except for the Kafkaesque effects of their accumulated stupidity). However, tell one million voters that you're going to take their state away (a sophist ploy, but you know that's how it would be worded) and you better damn well believe they'll be voting your ass into jail. Because that's how they really believe they'll make their world a better place.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
> or commuting in from Lowell
Off-topic but I have to say it. Lowell is a very nice city (despite its reputation) and I actually *chose* to live here [Lowell]. The advantages are numerous:
* Right next to tax-free Nashua.
* Right off of two major Highways.
* Not too far from the 'silicon valley' of
Massacusetts (128 belt).
* Housing prices are *actually* reasonable (unlike
the rest of the state).
* State engineering-centric university right in
the city (Umass Lowell).
* City owns its own water and sewer so no
water-bans like the other non-MWRA towns and
cities (and it is very clean by EPA stndards).
* It has become a beutiful city to visit between
all the 'revitalization' projects and state
parks (it is the birthplace of the American
Industrial Revolution -- look it up on Google)
* Some of the best food in the state -- there are
family-owned pizza and sub shops on every corner
and if you like any ethnic food this is the
place to be -- the *best* Thai restaurants I
have been to as well as great Vietnamese, Greek
and Chinese.
There are a few down-sides, though:
* Traffic in areas not near the highway.
* Real Estate taxes are higher then the surounding
areas but *nothing* compared to say, Salem NH.
* There are still a few seedy parts but they have
mostly disappeared in the last five years.
If you're a geek looking for a place to live seriously look at Lowell. I still am very happy in this city.
I just had to throw this plug in here because Lowell for some odd reason has a bad reputation in other parts of the state due to the post-industrial (albeit very traumatic) pains it went through.
Even better, when the US Feds come with guns and loudspeakers, it's always in your best interset to let them in; foreign governemtns and internal cults alike get smacked by the feds.
According to the Branch Davidians they TRIED to let 'em in - and Koresh got shot while trying. And a lot more later, which amounted to the Davidians believing that they wouldn't be allowed to surrender - and that they'd seen a number of people being shot for trying.
Similarly with Ruby Ridge. That standoff started with a government tresspasser shooting a dog and a teenage kid. Then it continued with a remote-controlled buggy with a phone and a gun coming up to the door and the phone ringing with the gun pointed at the house. And a sniper shooting a mother with babe-in-arms.
There are a few documentaries on this. You're welcome to believe them or dismiss them as nutcase propaganda. (But at least one of those on Waco is by a local TV news reporter who started out thinking they were a homicidal nut cult and ended up thinking they were a majority-non-white church group that had been systematically tortured to death by a jackbooted death-squad. And with work by Failure Analysis and infrared footage from the government itself to back up this interpretation.)
Bottom line is, when trying to get out from under the government's thumb, you have to be careful not to end up ground under its heel.
And once you start, stopping may not be under your control. It only takes ONE side to run a war.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You can't opt out of "federal mandates". The obligations of citizenship are not optional.
Besides, it's been done and it didn't work. Reference the events of 1861-1865 for details.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The branch davidians, among quite a lot of other things, refused to cooperate with an ATF investigation that was being carried out as much in accordance with due process of law as one could possibly ask, and shot some ATF agents. The south in the civil war, among quite a lot of other things, seceded from the united states despite having no clear authority to do so just because they didn't like the results of a presidential election, and fired on U.S. naval ships outside charleston.
:P) are actually trying to achieve their goals by nonviolent, political, legal means. That is a big, big difference! The government isn't going to send troops in to stop people from bloc voting (unlike in some countries i could name).
:)
The 20,000 people in the article have a plan to move to some state and then vote there. And y'all are comparing that to armed attempts to declare oneself outside of federal jurisdiction??
I don't think the Free State project or whatever is all that realistic, and i don't know if i agree with all of their goals. But they are serious, honest attempts to work within the system to effect change. Their goal basically comes down to using the democratic system for its intended purpose.
As such, i have to respect them as a movement, and i don't really think comparisons to the confederate states or the branch davidians are really in order. The free state people (look at their FAQ
I for one would say attempting to force some kind of 10th amendment confrontation between state and federal governments is a noble goal, and would be beneficial at least in that it would bring a marginalized issue to the forefront and force the supreme court to clarify a constitutional question that right now seems very very muddy (where is the border between state and federal jurisdiction?). And i for one would say this even if the confrontation in question were caused by a movement led by a zombified resurrection of Ayn Wacko Libertarian Rand herself
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
This seems unlikely. Why would any state pay into the fund unless they're getting more out of it than they put in? They wouldn't; they'd pull out. This cascading withdrawal would bring down the average amount available until no state could receive more than they put in and there were no more participants.
Clearly it's more complex than what you've described.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
I'm tired of people lieing about the Civil War and romanticizing the South's slave culture. "Imperialists" had nothing to do with the Civil War. Nor was the ante bellum South a garden of liberty. It was, in fact, just the opposite: a dictatorship of a minority planter class that sustained itself via slave culture. The South wanted to perpetuate an evil way of life and had spent the better part of the nation's first 80 years attempting to ensure that their despicable culture would be allowed to expand, unhindered, across the North American continent.
Proponents of slavery and ante-bellum culture precipitated the Civil War, were directly responsible for the death and destruction that the war brought to the South, and, in the end, deserved everything that happened to them.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Actually, for private law enforcement I can't say I've seen a better treatment than Vernor Vinge. There essentially was competitive law enforcement. In case you didn't get it, Robocop was anti-privatization.
Alaska is already removed from the US. There is a low population with poor voter turn out. There are already people here (I'm in Alaska)with leanings toward seccesion (Myself not included). If you can stomach the inclement weather, it is actually a nice place. The state is relatively regionalized/factionalized, making it easier to conquer..... I mean free. So, how about it? Why not Alaska?
> > The state can choose not to forward the monies.
> > The escalation curve is not pretty.
>
> Clearly it's more complex than what you've described.
The escalation curve is not pretty.
-- Terry
Private school is just too expensive.
Borrow money? not everyone has good credit!
Stupid? No, people arent stupid but school is expensive.
Will workers stay at jobs that pay unfair wages? Yes if thats the only jobs that exist.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
No one is planning to negotiate, they're planning to vote. The political equivalent of the 'negotiation' in The Fifth Element. "Where did he learn to negotiate like that?"
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
May I ask that all slashdotters sign up and specify any non-East Coast state? That way, should they actually put this into action, the strip mining, smokestacks (beloved of Ayn Rand) and smog that will blanket all nearby states can be somewhere else, not here :)
Think I'm kidding? :)
Thankfully we have a hell of a lot of activists ourselves, and good Congresscritters, plus it would be very easy to paint these guys as hostilely invading flatlanders trying to screw up the state. There's built-in prejudice against flatlanders trying to move in and throw their weight around, so it would be possible to rapidly build a mass movement just to resist them.
I agree they're 'insufferable loons', but some of us are already in battles against forces (for instance, agribusiness like Monsanto) that could take advantage of the insufferable loons, and that makes the situation a lot less funny. It doesn't matter if they're laughable and fail in their ideas for a utopian society, but if they ruin your state while they're at it, that's a problem. And again, some of us are already fighting other adversaries who could USE the 'insufferable loons' as tools. Suppose Monsanto arranged to have any GE-food-regulating referendum undertaken by a community, flooded with Libertarian ringers? The people who live there would be hosed because of the shills. They already do this but currently they don't have an organized force of 20,000 scabs to do their dirty work. Could be bad news.
You just have to go without the federal government handouts that come with those mandates as strings attached (that the money probably came from your state in the first place kind of sucks, though).
And maybe (in my dreams) federal intrusions on constitutional state self-regulation will go back to the pre-FDR era where they used the Interstate Commerce Clause as a pretext for everything.
I don't think equal protection would be a problem to a state freeing itself from the federal yoke as long as they don't start passing Jim Crow laws.
If people want that intrusion, let them go to another state that accepts it. That's the way it's supposed to work at least.
The police do not protect people, they investigate crimes after the fact. They are not objective, they are agents of the prosecution
First, investigating crime and bringing an offender to justice is preventing crime (be it future crime).
Second, police presence alone prevents crime. Hence, the black and white cars, light bars, and uniforms, etc.
Third, what does objectivity have to do with anything? Police officers are not interpreters of the law. They enforce the law. There is no objectivity in law enforcement.
However, there is definitely objectivity in whom they arrest. You either obey the law or break the law.
Police officers are not perfect: they make mistakes. But, they work very hard, everyday, dealing with people that you and I are scared of or just plain don't want to deal with.
And as far as this idea of "private law enforcement": are you suggesting that private police officers would be more objective (i.e. they would decide what laws to enforce and what laws to ignore?) Possibly leading to one company "allowing" some citizens to do whatever they want to in order to keep a "contract"?
In a competitive environment the police would not be competing against each other, but for your business.
Not quite sure what you're trying to preach here, but it makes no sense. They won't be competing against each other, but will be competing for your business? Isn't that competing against each other? Standard capitalist business model? Who does the job best, wins contract?
Amazing.
I would love to visit and observe such a society. Definitely would provide me with an afternoon of laughter.
Scenario: you dial 10-10-220-911 (and you're automatically entered to win 2 tickets to the SuperBowl) and report someone breaking into your home. Your local private law enforcement company dispatches a unit to your home.
A rival private law enforcement company intercepts the call and dispatches a unit as well.
Company A and Company B law enforcement officers arrive at the same time. Outside your home, Company A officer begins to argue with Company B officer. Meanwhile, there is still an intruder in your home.
After hearing your continuous screams, Company A officer and Company B officer race each other to your front door. However, before entering your home, they take out their PDAs and verify that you have given their respective company permission to enter your home (given that both officers are private citizens, if they enter your home without permission they are trespassing: misdemeanor but, if they force entry then they are breaking and entering: felony).
After verifying a signed release form, Company A officer and Company B officer enter your home. Company A officer spots the intruder, pulls out his night-stick, clubs the intruder, and handcuffs him. Company B officer realizing that he may lose this job if he doesn't do something, pulls out his automatic and shoots the cuffed suspect dead.
Both companies bill you.
Which company did a better job?
The FSP depends on there being significant local minorities that already support anything on their agenda for their 20k activists to make a difference. It's implicit in the structure. So what happens is that they make up a list of potential issues to push, come up with libertarian solutions to all of them and poll test the solutions for popularity, making the most popular the first in line, 2nd most popular, 2nd, etc. They don't have to be big or small issues but making the early experience one of win, win, win is important to develop momentum and poliical capital as it will draw into your coalition opportunists and technocrats who aren't pro-liberty per se but like to go with a winner. That gets you into the 2nd phase where you push forward harder and harder issues and establish your current societal culture stalemate line. When you find that line, you're winning as much as you're losing and the next phase is to educate people and shift the cultural line. This is where things get very hard and you have teh maximum chance for splits and dissolution of the project.
But OTOH look what's been accomplished, genuinely popular things have happened, the state has probably significantly moved in a libertarian direction, we might actually have a non-republicrat state delegation to the federal govt. (and getting an FSP proponent or two in the Senate would be absolutely revolutionary), and the 20k has likely pulled in more freedom lovers along the way. Assuming for the moment that libertarian solutions produce superior societies, you also have people streaming there from all over the world to study and immitate this governing miracle whether they understand it or not.
Most of the stuff coming from DC has nothing to do with equal protection. It's extra garbage thrown on the states at the behest of those of whom 1/50th (in the Senate at least) are knowledgeable about any one state. For example, remember the city in Alaska having to dump waste fish into its water treatment plant so that it could remove the federally-mandated amount of waste from drinking water? Their water was naturally too clean due to runoff.
I am not contesting federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act that keep the states from abusing their people. That's equal protection.
Also, state legislation trumping feds isn't a dead issue, just look at medical marijuana initiatives. It's still being fought. In that case, please tell me where the Constitution gives the federal government power to keep people from growing stuff in their own back yards?
Actually New Hampshire's on the list of 1st rank candidate states.
Congratulations for having the resolve to stand up for something you believe in. I in no way intended to imply that the only people interested enough in this project to commit to it fit any of the classifications I listed. It just seems to me (from participating in the FSP Yahoo group, you can find me if you look) that folks fitting in those categories had more a more personal reason to desire the project's success.
To be quite honest, I was surprised at how negative the response was. Cynicism is a terrible by-product of the society we have build. I do support the project, and hope for its success. I just haven't taken the time yet to discuss it with my wife. Without her blessing, I will not sign up.
Might as well have posted a link to the Chrisitan Bible as disproof of libertarianism.
What?
I'm a die-hard long-time Libertarian, and an evangelical Christian (you can use the word "fundamentalist" instead if you insist, although I don't like the negative baggage attached to it) as well. Where is the contradiction between the two? I certainly haven't found one. I live by the rules in the book that God wrote, and I think others should too, but I don't think that those rules should be enforced as law by humans, because not everyone can agree on the authority of those rules, and because God gave people free will so that they could live a life of Liberty and choose their own paths in life. After the Bible, my next-most-important guiding document is the Constitution, and I treasure the writings of various Libertarian authors. I even think that Ayn Rand was right about quite a few things, even though she'd call me evil and wouldn't speak to me if she were still alive today (but she isn't, so her opinions have probably changed a bit... heh heh).
If you think there are no fundamentalist Christian Libertarians, you're wrong. There are a ton of us. I've talked to many. We're not terribly vocal, because if we speak up we risk being ostracized by the non-Christian Libertarians and the non-Libertarian Christians. We have to watch what we say depending on which group we're around at the moment, lest we get branded as disloyal by people who don't understand either philosophy. If you were a member of two groups that (wrongfully) hated each other, mostly out of misunderstanding, you probably wouldn't be too vocal about it either.
That's bad logic.
How about this, instead?
If you don't like it in the U.S....
...then VOTE.
After all, don't we live in a representative democracy/republic? People can actually VOTE and have a say in how the government is run.
This is all this project is... organized voting. Do you have a problem with the right of free people to vote in Democratic elections? If so, maybe YOU should leave. After all, WE (freedom advocates) where here first; we founded the country. This project is a great idea. We are the people, and we're going to vote, and we're going to lobby, just like the founders of this country intended.
Unlike many other nations, we won't stop you from leaving.
Don't you see? We are the "we". We are the people, and therefore, we are the country. If you don't like US using the Democratic process that WE created, then YOU should go to a non-Democratic country.
For much of its history, the US did not have a government run police force. Instead, it was handled by local organizations. some volunteer, some commercial.
And the people were freer.
Anyone who does not believe in liberty will not be able to conceive of living in a free society and so they will make fun. But its actually quite sad, really.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
And they're stationed where?
Besides, if the leadership of the Republican party is any indication, Texans spend all their time dodging millitary service.
Note the juxtaposition. I think Libertarians look like Marxists. I think Objectivists look like Maxist-Leninists (Communists). And I don't think either are actually a cult, and I'm not sure how you inferred I did. Now, if I'd been talking about the Landmark Foundation...
(Your notes on the actual cult are interesting and spooky).
Libertarians - as in, the flavour I see through the lens of the people who talk most - most resemble Marxist idealists. Just as Marx thought the edifices of society created the corruption of the world (through keeping the proletariat down) and that abolishing the bourgoise-capitalist government and other institutions would magically cause a fine society to emege, Libertarians seem to hold to a similar set of opinions - except, of course, the interests that the government are propping up are different.
The same naive "magic happens here" is the salient feature.