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 ...
Old and tired because they won't act on it. They prefer to stay where they are and complain about Republicans.
"It's the way it is". Tell me, why does it stay that way?
I think the 10th Amendment is dead. And with it, the entire design and purpose of the Republic. The 10th Amendment wasn't revoked via the constitutional process. Instead, politicians simply decided it was in the way and ignored it. Far from an obscure ancient misdeed, this is an ongoing process. Every single day, the 10th Amendment is still part of the Bill of Rights, and every single day it is actively ignored.
"It's the way it is" because certain PEOPLE make it so. Not just any people, mind you. Those who you vote for are responsible. Since they represent you, that makes you responsible. And your proxies don't do it alone. They collude with their buddies the Democrats to undermine the crystal clear language of the Constitution.
I understand this is all very embarrassing for someone to point out. But nonetheless, there it is. The 10th Amendment is dead, not of divine intervention, but because it stands in the way of the centralized control and social engineering that is the heart of your philosophy.
Conservatives like to claim to be for local control. In fact, a thread was started yesterday inquiring about the definition of Conservative and Republican. Mentioned several times was love of decentralized government. Yet here we are, trying to exercise local control, and conservatives are claiming this is some loony crackpot idea.
What changed? Someone they don't like wants to use local control to do things some Republicans don't care for. So much for conservative love of local government.
Ron Paul isn't a Republican; he's a damned RINO,who is so out of step that he is as bad ( in his own way ) as jumping Jeffords.
You don't like him because he's a living example of what Republicans used to be. He's a poingnant reminder of just how far your party has strayed from its roots. The only reason I can find that he shouldn't be a Republican is because your party doesn't deserve him.
It is precisely this kind of juvenile, naif thinking, which make Libertarians a laughingstolck and a true enemy, within , of the Conservative movement.
When hatred and outright denial of the Constitution's design of decentralized government has become the hallmark of the conservative movement, we can be sure that the conservative movement is dead. In its place is an imposter.
Anyone looking at it with an open mind will soon discover that there is no mandate for freedom in this good ol' US of A -- other than the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, but those are just pieces of paper, after all -- and most of the brain-dead population like it that way.
They like the security of knowing the nanny state will take care of them when something goes wrong. They want the government to punish the crooks, whether those crooks are small-time drug pushers or big-time corporate thieves. They like the thought of being able to call a "code enforcement officer" down to the city hall and have him deal with the neighbors when they park their RV on the street.
In short, they like government. The more the better.
It's only when the JBTs come down on them personally, or on someone they know, that most Americans give a hoot about the dangers of Big Government. Talk to someone who has had to go through court to try to gain custody of his or her own offspring after the social services people learn from the school teacher that little Johnnie wasn't getting a proper breakfast, or that his mother whacked him on the behind for misbehaving. Talk to someone whose car was taken as "evidence" when an illegal search turned up contraband in the trunk. Talk to someone who just went through a divorce and is now having to defend himself against a tax audit brought on by a vengeful ex-spouse. These things are becoming more common every day, and though they don't always make the news the word gets out to friends and relatives. The pot is beginning to boil and smart frogs are ready to jump.
What are the choices? Are we supposed to believe that Republicans will fix things once they get control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, or will it have to wait until the War on Terrorism is over, or they gain a veto-proof majority, or get two more appointments to the Supreme Court?
Many of us are getting tired of waiting.
If only we had the voting strength to remove the clowns who claim to be for smaller, less powerful government but all of a sudden shift direction when the titular head of their party proclaims a need to expand the Department of Education, establish a new Department of Homeland Security and give new surveillance powers to police in anticipation of further terrorist attacks (and what other kind of attack could we reasonably expect from a third-world nation that has no navy or air force and thus poses no military threat?) even as they search in vain to find significant policy issues to keep the voters from confusing them with the evil Democrats.
Oh, of course. We're for vouchers. We're for privatizing the armies of fumble-fingered baggage checkers that will make the airlines safe so they can go bankrupt. We're for saving Social Security even if means putting the entire (non-existent) trust fund in the declining stock market. We're for phasing out the death tax over ten years, but then bringing it back in the eleventh in case we need the extra money to balance the federal budget. We're fiscal conservatives, you know.
We're for providing subsidized prescriptions for the elderly; fully-funding Head Start for the young (and their working mothers); saving the construction industry with government-sponsored disaster insurance; saving the steel industry by imposing protective tariffs; saving the airlines, AMTRAK, the domestic auto makers, textiles, rubber, trucking, Greyhound, you name it.
We want to save the world!
And after that's done, are you planning to revisit the idea of restoring the American Republic? Or will you be too tired from fending off evil Democrats who've been trying to take credit for all the socialism that Republicans have achieved since taking over both the executive and legislative branches?
One of the advertised features of the federal system we have, as taught in textbooks if not always observed in reality, is each state's being able to establish a distinct set of laws for governing the area within its jurisdiction. Pragmatists like to call this having "50 laboratories of democracy."
The Constitution is silent on what a state must provide in the way of welfare benefits, public education, health care, land-use regulations, zoning, roads and Internet access. Its only provision is that the United States guarantee a Republican (not meaning the political party, necessarily) form of government.
In theory, then, a state could decide to opt out of many of the accepted amenities of the welfare state, just as Arizona has refused to go along with Daylight Saving Time (and the Freon ban, I understand).
Will 20,000 individuals be enough to do the trick?
It may be more than enough if they are all determined, dedicated activists who don't spend all day at their computer keyboards trying to convert the unconvertable.
Walter Williams tends toward secession as the most likely solution, but who knows?
Whatever comes of it, the Free State Project beats the more violent alternatives that have been suggested.
Power tools ? With no electricity ? See what I mean ? Even YOU , in a hypothetical / dream world, can't fathom reality. The true / valid consiquence of going to some barren ( pristine ? ) place, to form a new Libertarian nation, haved failed, right out of the box, to imagined what those foolhardy and delusional to attempt such a thing, would face.
This is sillier than a " MONTY PYTHON " sketch ! Whether one could mass 200 or 2,000, or 20,000 people to go off to some "new " land, it would be an utter disaster in less than a week. LOL
Ron Paul is a RINO, who couldn't get elected as a Libertarian. He is in no way, NONE , a throwback to an old time Conservative / Republican. Revisionistic, simplistic , wishful thinking musings won't maked it so. And no, I don't much care for frauds and marverics, so I don't " like " him.
Earth to freeeee ... this isn't a one party country, nor is it run by a benevilant despot. That's but one or two reasons why things haved gotten to where they are. Conservatives , even Republicans, haven't been continually in office / a majority for the duration of the past century. Times also change things; two vast oceans no longer protect this nation from attack from outside.
I'd be all over moving to the State of Freeptopia, with fellow Conservatives.
How about a few hundred square miles of Baja California on the Pacific Coast? Purchase a 200 year lease from Mexico, spend a few billion on a desalination plant, erect an impregnable border barrier, and there you have it: Freeptopia!
Ls actually elected a state rep in Alaska once a long time ago. Mostly they are getting nowhere anymore. It might be more productive of their time if they went ahead with founding their own colony in space, the famous L5 colony.
-Former L
Well, at least you're getting closer...
If successful, Libertarians would have control of a geographically large state plus 2 Senators and a seat in the House. State laws can potentially be used to avoid the harm of federal laws, particularly with regard to federal income taxes. Moreover, if successful, neighboring states would be encouraged by the Wyoming miracle to become more libertarian, which could result in the rapid spread of libertarianism in the West (note how many states border Wyoming) and eventually throughout the country.
I completely agree. (I was just funnin' ya...)
But it's the best way to establish the credit of a new nation as we saw with the United States.
Since there aren't enough Libertarians, the " new country " would be impecunious from the start.
What ConservativeDude and I were talking about wasn't the hypothetical Libertarian takeover of a state, it was the hypothetical founding of a new nation based on constitutional principles. In any case, it's hypothetical, so don't go off half-cocked, like I've seen you do on many occasions. You've shown a habit of being very intolerant of contemplative discussions. In other words, loosen up a little. The great philosophers enjoyed contemplating hypotheical stiuations. It's not evil. LOL
Libertarians, like Objectivists, aren't philanthropic; hence, not a one would bankroll such a demented ideda.
It was done in 1776, were the founding fathers demented?
Why should they ? Don't Libertarians claim that self sufficancy is the ONLY way to go ? Wouldn't a single ( or even a few ) " moneymen ", then demand to rule ?
I'm going to ignore your references to "Libertarians" and assume you are referring to the foundation of a new nation of conservatives, I would not help in establishing any nation of anarchy. Moneymen care about money. A lot of business owners feel the same way about freedom as we do, they are not socialists like Soros and Buffet. A lot of business owners support the Republican Party, those are the ones that would be of benefit to us and themselves in the framework of freedom.
That's human nature ; you know, along with consequences, something Libertarians refuse , utterly and completely, to ever take into consideration.
If it's human nature, why didn't Washington demand to be emperor? There are a class of people in this world that understand freedom and would not work to undermine it. Freedom was preserved in this country for 150 years until the election of FDR when people began voting themselves other people's money. The problems this nation has experienced began when that genie was let out of the bottle. Since we've started on that path, there's been no turning back yet. Reagan slowed it down, but that's the best we can hope for. We need to look at what started us on that path. Too much unselective immigration in the early 1900s? Maybe so. The seeds of the Federal Reserve being sown? Maybe so.
Power tools ? With no electricity ?
Power plants are impossible to build nowadays? The greatest men remembered of the last 300 years were men that did not go on a power grab. They were men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc. They were moderately wealthy men who contibuted to the founding of a nation. The same could happen again. A rich man who has everything always wants that little something extra, fame. That's why they go on these ill-conceived philanthropic adventures that don't really help anyone. What if they had a chance to establish their names by sponsoring a new nation renewing a commitment to freedom? There may be some takers. What else have they got to do? There've been thousands of rich men in the world since 1800. Most are forgotten.
See what I mean ? Even YOU , in a hypothetical / dream world, can't fathom reality. The true / valid consiquence of going to some barren ( pristine ? ) place, to form a new Libertarian nation, haved failed, right out of the box, to imagined what those foolhardy and delusional to attempt such a thing, would face.
Yeah, you're right, it certainly didn't work on the North American continent, did it? Henry Ford bascically built himself a small country in Michigan. Just one guy did this. You get enough financial backing and it could be done.
This is sillier than a " MONTY PYTHON " sketch ! Whether one could mass 200 or 2,000, or 20,000 people to go off to some "new " land, it would be an utter disaster in less than a week. LOL
No it couldn't be done with 20,000. How much longer before it becomes necessary though? Like I said before, every year more and more people either work for the government or become otherwise dependent on a dwindling percentage of producers in the private sector. There must be a breaking point somewhere. Where is this breaking point? Will it be one guy producing and 280,000,000 million people living off of him? No it won't go that far, so how far will it go? Grab a Rand McNally Road atlas book, look at how much property the government now owns out west. They're trying to own it all. At what point will they stop these land grabs? Where's the breaking point there? I remember reading in history that the government would obtain land and then turn it over to the people to develop. When did that process reverse? What principles still exist now that existed pre-FDR? Not very many.
May the Prince of Peace guide you always in your marriage, in your mortal understandings, in your relationships with men, and in your spiritual progression in this life and forevermore; and may God grant you the strength and charity to follow His example in all things, as best you are able, as God gives you the light to see. "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."
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.