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.
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.
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
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
Oh, and we covered this topic a long time ago at Poliglut.
/. shouldn't, just that politically minded folk might find a politcally oriented site a better resource than /. for politics.
Not that
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.
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
"We will repeal state taxes
Wow, but wait...
"Make a donation"
I see....
While in principle I agree with the objection to unconstitutional laws I have a real problem with privatizing everything. I see street-sweeping, electricity, etc. as one of the reasons for government. As Enron, and Colifornia have shown private companies cannot be trusted with basic infrastructure. And, as At&T, the RIAA, and AOLTW have shown eliminating all regulation is the best way to encourage monopolies.
I hate bad government, I also hate bad corporations.
Irvu.
I think that it would be perfectly consistent of their Libertarian viewpoint to accept military protection from the federal government. They just won't accept abridgement of individual freedom in trade for it.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Wyoming is demographically ideal for this kind of thing.
I don't know if the current inhabitants would mind too much, either. They seem to generally be hostile to the federal government. OTOH, without much of a manufacturing or service base, I think the econonmy probably is dominated by extractive industries such as mining and ranching. Thus, the choice between economic livlihood and a beautiful environment usually weighs in heavier on the former, since the local perspective is that there's "plenty enough" of the latter.
I had heard of something akin to this on a county level occuring in Oregon a few years ago, where enough Hare Krishna (?) adherents moved in to affect the makeup of the county government.
But from what little I remember of the Civil War / War Between the States, the federal government of the United States won't take kindly to secession.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
...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
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.
Exactly. Which part of the statement that the government exists to protect individuals from force and from fraud did the original poster not understand? In defense, the military is all about protecting from force.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
The deciding factor in whether or not something like this will be successful, is how the courts (and supreme court) interpret the freedom of a state to create and practice law widely different than the 49 other states.
Remember that in the constitution, it is stated that no citizen shall be denied equal protection of rights, and importantly, that federal law is supreme when Congress speaks to a question of law (trumping state law). So citizens have an expectation that states will have a bascially consistent set of laws under which they can live. (the supreme court has taken cases which test the ability of states to "pioneer" new kinds of law, and this is contentious I believe)
Therefore, while it might be easy to get some measures passed (ones that no one would conceivably object to), other more controversial measures might be quite difficult.
Just look at the medical marijuana thing in CA. The state says that it's ok, but the federal government says it isn't. And what happens? People get arrested for using and distributing it. Federal law has supremacy over local/state law, regardless of how charitable or well-intentioned.
This plan would work if the 10th Ammendment actually meant something. Anything the new 'liberated' state tries to do will be summarily shut down and/or harrassed by the feds - from witholding highway funds to them simply coming in on federal level and enforcing whatever draconian BS they feel like.
The idea is great in theory, but I can't imagine how it could work in todays less ideal world.
www.enthea.org
"I 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.
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.
:-)
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?
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.
"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!
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.
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.
Their free state seems to have been slashdotted. Shortest regime ever.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
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?
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!
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.
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
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!".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
(wokka wokka)
It's only if your net take is larger than your net input that witholding of federal highway funds is persuasive.
Wrong logic. This only would be true if a state could choose to fund its own highways and not pay any federal taxes that go into the federal highway fund. Your state's taxpayers pay the Fed. And your state tries to get it back for you in the name of funds. And you can't tell me it isn't political. boatloads of the cash earmarked for highways don't even go to anything having to do with transportation.
The threat to withold highway funds is only persuasive to some states: those states which have more roads, per capita, then their tax base would ordinarily support.
But if the federal government withholds your highway funds, they still make you pay your taxes to support them. In other words, even if you're paying more into the highway system than you're getting out, it's still a better deal than getting NOTHING out. So it's persuasive to every state whose citizens pay federal taxes - i.e. every state in the country.
grep -ri 'should work'
Oh yeah, this sounds like a great idea. If you thought the Slashdot trolls were annoying, just wait until you LIVE in Slashdot.
If you had, oh say a million dollars worth of personal property you used in your business, and the Federal goverment tried to create a law to outlaw your ability to use that equipment, and just "take it away", you'd probably be up in arms too.
Think about it from the point of view of a typical southern plantation owner. It's clearly braindead thinking, but at the time, slaves were unquestioningly personal property, and that view was both written into law and affirmed by the Supreme Court. To the southern plantation owner, talk about "freeing the slaves" probably sounded as much like fighting words as "Napster" sounds to the RIAA today. You might think that the "wrongness" of "ownership of Intellectual property" is a no-brainer, but there are powerful people with much to lose who might take a dim view of a Supreme Court ruling which outlaws Copyright, or affirms the right of WaRez D00dz to distribute digital copies of anything they can get their hands on.
Or, do you get upset at the thought that some Senator from South Carolina wants to include DRM in every computer, and take away your right to run Linux? If so, then you have a hint of why the people in the Sucessionist states thought they had something meaningful to give their lives for. They were not only defending their personal property from an "illegal taking" but defending their State(s) from an invasion by the military forces of foreign States.
(Before the Americal Civil War, the phrase "United States of America" was considered to be plural, as in "The United States are..." It was not until after the Civil War that it took on a common meaning as a singular, as in "The United Stated is...". )
Or, for those readers who don't consider themselves to be "Westerners", how would you react if some World Government declared that an integral part of your culture (your language, your religion, your disrespect for Steamboat Willie, etc) were against their interests and sent troops to invade and set you right? Get the picture?
Some would go so far as to argue that Lincoln was actually losing the war for as long as he maintained it to be about Federal rights over States Rights, and that the only way he won was to change the context of the war into one against slavery. There's at least room to debate that if the Union Army has lost at Gettysburg, things in North America would be very different today.
So, personally, I wouldn't discount the chances of a movement with the moral high ground suceeding in reclaiming a state's rights over federal rights. Such a movement would likely provide benefits to all of the other states, (including ones with nothing to do with this movement) and so would likely garner support from other states as well. The key, of course, would be to maintain the moral high ground, and to have a willingness to fight for what they believe in. This would demand that all actions be taken within the constraints of law, but there's actually plenty of wiggle room there.
Are you concerned about things like Microsoft licensing, DRM in your computer, and free music? Really? Do you care enough about it to sleep out in a field this winter at Bull Run without a blanket, and eat worms (or go hungry, if you can't find any)? How about a smaller sacrifice: give up DSL for dial-up? No? Neither did the Union army, and look what happened to them.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
But, having said that, I think I'm on pretty stable ground when I say that a dominant system of laws, taxes, and accountability like the Federal Government, hates competition. It has the ways and means to obstruct, and flat-out put-down any social movement, regardless of the constitution. The Federal Government is the single most powerful organization within the CONUS, with the ways and means to influence legislation, and commerce with any domestic or international business. It controls aspects of the transportation infrastructure that are nightmarishly indentured by laws and regs that span the CONUS, and given even the slightest whiff of sucession from any of the laws and policies that empower it, we can expect a swift and immediate response (California is probably the most independent state in the CONUS, and they're walking on a knife's edge).
Anything short of a technology or an event which completely renders such an organziation impotent and the result will always be the same...the dissolution of the new order, and the replacement and reinforcement of the pre-existing order. In this way, the FedGov is like water being balanced between all the sinks, completely submerging the states. Any state that tries to rise above it will face a tsunami...people are weak, and softer than ever these days, and the technologies and methods of coercion are more sophisticated now than they have ever been.
We are a society of shoppers. We are no longer the farmers and the soldiers we once were...our hands are soft and our backs are weak. Maybe being brutalized by the iron-glove of the fedgov may turn all of that around. Society is starting to demand common-sense laws about some controlled substances that have existed in the underground--by proxy in the homes of the citizens, seeing constant use without all of the horror promised by the we-know-better-than-you government--but are seeing more and more demand in public...it may be a representational democracy, but even public figures have to occasionally listen to their voters. It's probably the most satisfying aspect of the democratic experiment, but everyone should enjoy seeing politicians squirm as they earn their money.
In the end, we all want our sitcoms, our nice roads, EMT service, and hospitals...and compliance pays more than grass-roots optimism and bartering ever have, or possibly will. In physics, there is a conservation of energy. In society, the same thing applies, but instead of energy it's comfort. As long as people are comfortable nothing is going to change.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
"What can be done in a single state? A great deal. We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs.
Repeal state taxes? Sounds really nice. But remember we live in the United States of Litigiousness. In addition, you'll probably have to change the state constitution and that in itself will take no less than a decade.
Bottom line: repeal of state taxes won't happen for the generation that "starts" the independent state, but for the second generation.
We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws.
In this day and age of the "Patriot Act," CARNIVORE, and the overwhelming need for security (according to our current administration) there is no way that 20,000 or even 100,000 people could break the federal hold on states. Those who have tried on a much smaller basis (Ruby Ridge and Pine Ridge) are either dead or in prison.
We will repeal laws regulating drugs and guns.
And the federal authorities that you no longer collaborate will seize any and all public or private property that has anything to do with any type of (federally) illegal narcotic; and when you resist, the President will federalize your own National Guard to defeat you.
10th Amendment power has been whittled away for the past 250 years. It does not have enough power to over turn federal drug and weapons laws.
We will end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain.
See above.
We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and monopolies. Then we will negotiate directly with the federal government for more autonomy.
Yeah, Jefferson Davis thought he could do the above too. Lincoln thought different. We all know what happened next.
There exists a delicate balance of power between the federal government and the 50 states. Before you go running off to create your own independent state, you may want to create some alliances with other states. If you go it alone (be it with 20,000 people) you will fail.
Don't forget history. It was not Washington and the Colonial army alone that defeated the British, it was the French Navy and Army with the Colonial army that defeated the British.
And a small request: after you have your own "free" state, work hard to call a federal constitutional convention, so that the Constitution can be changed.
Out
Yes, because you need to be 21 to be old enough to drink.
It is much more important that you are that old to drink. Stuff like the following really doesn't require that much responsiblity.
Vote
Join the army
Drive a car
Have sex (and children)
Work
Pay taxes
Own a gun
Yeah good thing we don't let those kids drink.
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
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
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
I pay the same taxes you do, and I don't have any kids. Obviously, your view that "property taxes" == "tuition for your kids" is a not quite accurate. HTH
XML causes global warming.
The speed limit isn't just for traffic control, there are also good environmental reasons for keeping speed under control. This report http://www.epa.gov/otaq/reports/envspoms.htm by the EPA found a 153% increase in carbon monoxide emissions at 65 mph versus 55 mph.
"I think the U.N. is going to find that the blame lies with all the Sudanese rap music that glamorizes genocide."
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?
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
I have yet to actually see anyone making the claim of "Increased costs of healthcare" actually produce figures to back it up.
a febike/endnotes.html
Having debated this issue while in college, I've done my homework. Here's some reading:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/s
Every time any sort of goods are transported to or from your state to other states your state is getting a benefit from the federal funding for highways.
Unless your state never trades any goods and is totally insular, you DO benefit from the highways in other states.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
And if all geeks moved to North Dakota, then certainly I wouldn't be moving there. I would like some normal people around as well, not to mention people of the opposite sex.
And if you really believe you can get a significant portion of freedom-loving people to move to some state, you are severly misguided about what freedom means. Because freedom-lovers love their freedom, they will not be moved around like cattle.
And while getting all free thinkers to have the same fun idea at the same time (if even for 5 minutes) is close to impossible, making all of them have the same fun idea for long enough to actually sell their house and move to North Dakota (or wherever) is far worse than impossible.
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
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.