Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yale libertarian plans drastic 'Free State Project'
Yale Daily News ^ | Wednesday, October 23, 2002 | EMILY ANTHES

Posted on 10/23/2002 1:04:07 AM PDT by Roscoe

Frustrated by the Libertarian Party's failure to make progress nationally, Jason Sorens GRD '04 decided the best course of action would be to take over Wyoming. Or maybe Alaska.

The plan, which Sorens calls "The Free State Project," is ambitious. It calls for moving 20,000 people -- including the one additional Yalie who has signed on so far -- over the next nine years to a sparsely populated state where they would take to the ballot boxes in order to repeal most drug and gun laws, eliminate the income tax, and privatize most government-run industries.

So in July 2001, he posted an essay on the project on the Internet. Within a few days, he had over 200 e-mails from people who were interested.

"The response was positively overwhelming," he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at yaledailynews.com ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 921 next last
To: tpaine
You seem to delight in the infantile belief system that a group of looney tunes can take over a region of the country and suborbinate national laws at their whim. At the rate some in the LP are going (illegal "law schools" in Texas), and the anti-statist-won't-pay-my-taxes patriots, the only territory the LP may soon "occupy" is a full wing of one of the federal prisons.
41 posted on 10/23/2002 9:53:36 AM PDT by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Why would a project like this threaten you? - Try to make a rational point on the issue. "

Please point out where you think I appear to feel threatened. Otherwise, stop assuming things about me. Thanks. :)

The rational point that I made was that 20,000 people are very unlikely to move themselves and their families over a period of nine years to another state for the sake of political experimentation. Although I'd like to see the guy try, he is not going to suceed.

Offer free health care (including marriage counseling and massage therapy) paid for by tax increases, however, and you'll likely see an exodus of over 100,000 (IMO). Watch Oregon if their proposition passes.

42 posted on 10/23/2002 9:55:31 AM PDT by RabidBartender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You mean they aren't all just responding to some earlier "initiation of force" in an endless "libertarian" cycle?

No. I mean that if we attempted the free state project in Somalia, and through the vote it was successful, the Somalis, like you, would initiate force to destroy it.

43 posted on 10/23/2002 9:55:56 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
armed homosexual unions...great
44 posted on 10/23/2002 9:56:39 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Governor
That's what the California Liberials are trying to do in Colorado.......

The Colorado Freedom Report

45 posted on 10/23/2002 9:56:42 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
the Somalis, like you, would initiate force to destroy it.

Nah, they've already established it.

46 posted on 10/23/2002 9:57:45 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
actually, I have thought about this on a global scale....is it possible to start a country somewhere?

can someone buy an island?

or how about doing a land deal with one of the 'stans or Russia (I guess that ups the cost b/c your start up costs will include a land army).

I have a fascination with pioneers and pilgrims....I don't know if I would have been tough enough to go, but I like to think I would have.

But what is scary is that I'm not sure there is any place on earth today where new pilgrims could go to start a new country....ideally with the US Constitution, and this time we add another amendment: WE MEAN IT THIS TIME!

47 posted on 10/23/2002 9:59:33 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Impeach the Boy
You seem to delight in the infantile belief system that a group of looney tunes can take over a region of the country and suborbinate national laws at their whim.

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The 9th and 10th Amendments are an "infantile belief system"? The people who ratified them were "loony tunes"???

48 posted on 10/23/2002 10:02:32 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Nah, they've already established it.

You think Somalia is a free state? Are you deliberately ignorant, or does it come naturally?

49 posted on 10/23/2002 10:05:22 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: freeeee; Roscoe; Cultural Jihad
By loonytarian standards, Somalia is one of the freest places in the world. There's no duly constituted government to interfere with lighting up that bong.
50 posted on 10/23/2002 10:07:15 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
this is PRECISELY the problem....because the doctrine of enumerated powers (we are supposed to know ahead of time what the fed can and can't do...and guess what under the Constitution it couldn't do everything!) has been unconstitutionally ignored, people seek out a place where they have some freedom from the fed. If you do that, as they did in yesteryear, then you only have to work about the state and local power grabbers. While that doesn't mean your freedom will never be infringed upon, at least it makes the possibilities of your vigilance counting something meaningful! And if you don't get your way, then you would have now 49 other states to choose from. Surely at least one of those would be freedom loving.

But since the fed has unlimited power now, we have no guaranty of liberty, regardless of where you move. This has resulted in a substantial loss of freedom.

While obviously this project is idealistic and does seem to suffer from the fact that fed law is omnipotent, making success unlikely, the idea is wholly commendable as is the constitution, whose writers were hardly loonies, but freedom loving wise men.
51 posted on 10/23/2002 10:07:40 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Wyoming, the new Somalia?
52 posted on 10/23/2002 10:09:39 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
By loonytarian standards, Somalia is one of the freest places in the world. There's no duly constituted government to interfere with lighting up that bong.

Yep.

Or as one libertarian described it, "Somalia was (and is?) an almost ideal anarchy..."

53 posted on 10/23/2002 10:12:19 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Somalia is one of the freest places in the world. There's no duly constituted government

Somalia is ruled by tyrant warlords. They have no qualms with initiation of force. When in Somalia, you will do as they say or you will die. Consent of the governed is not a consideration there.

Why do you persist in these transparent lies? They aren't plausible to even a casual observer. I've seen three year olds concoct more believable tales.

54 posted on 10/23/2002 10:13:47 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Qat/Khat/Kat is the substance of choice there.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Hornet/qat.html
55 posted on 10/23/2002 10:14:38 AM PDT by RabidBartender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Somalia is ruled by tyrant warlords.

Yeah, but they aren't a "government," and all loonytarians know that government is EE-VIL.

56 posted on 10/23/2002 10:15:42 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RabidBartender
It must be a REAL good drug if there's three OK methods for spelling it :o)
57 posted on 10/23/2002 10:16:10 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
You have a problem with freedom for all, and the means to preserve it?
58 posted on 10/23/2002 10:21:32 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Impeach the Boy
You delight in making the 'neener neener' juvenile comment, don't you?
Why would a project like this threaten you? - Try to make a rational point on the issue. 29 - tpaine

You seem to delight in the infantile belief system that a group of looney tunes can take over a region of the country and suborbinate national laws at their whim.

You have an idiotic premise. Libertarians would NOT violate the constitution. - Many 'laws' do.

At the rate some in the LP are going (illegal "law schools" in Texas), and the anti-statist-won't-pay-my-taxes patriots, the only territory the LP may soon "occupy" is a full wing of one of the federal prisons.

More juvenile neener-talk. Get a brain, and attach your mouth.

59 posted on 10/23/2002 10:22:05 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Yeah, but they aren't a "government," and all loonytarians know that government is EE-VIL.

I know you already know this, but I'll repeat it for lurkers:

L(l)ibertarians aren't opposed to government. We are opposed to initiation of force or fraud. We are equally opposed to initiation of force or fraud by governments, individuals, warlords, gangs, criminals, anybody.

L(l)ibertarians advocate government that refrains from initiation of force or fraud. Such a government would have few, enumerated powers. Those who initiate force or fraud against their neighbors would be harshly punished by the government who has been authorized by the injured party to pursue defensive or retaliatory force (justice) on their behalf against those that initiate force.

That means no murder, no rape, no theft. That means you mind your own business and take responsibility for your actions. That is not anarchy.

You are deliberately confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Such sophistry will not pass unnoticed here.

60 posted on 10/23/2002 10:24:11 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 921 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson