Oh yeah, sho' 'nuff. We have the technology:
Posted on 11/20/2002 4:01:42 PM PST by watcher1
Turn me loose, set me free
by Wayne Laugesen (letters@boulderweekly.com)
Grab your gun, and tell the old lady to start packin' up the kids. It's time to move to Wyoming to create a free state. That's exactly what libertarian-minded people, from all over the country, are planning to do in droves.
For too long, Libertarians have comprised the party of refreshing and popular ideas but no results. Like members of all third parties, Libertarians have enjoyed victories that are really just hollow consolations. Libertarians, for example, took majority control of an entire city council recently. Unfortunately, the pothole politics of Leadville, Colo., don't free American citizens from oppressive taxes, big business and excessive government.
What Libertarians need, if they are to become a real player in American politics, is this: two members in the United States Senate, at least one member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and a governor. (Holding onto the Leadville City Council won't hurt them, either!)
How do they accomplish this substantive step toward the major leagues? They take over Wyoming, Vermont, or one of the other 10 states (or the District of Columbia) that consist of fewer than 1.5 million residents. (Other possible targets are: Idaho; Maine; New Hampshire; Hawaii; Rhode Island; Montana; Delaware; South Dakota; North Dakota; and Alaska)
The invasion of one of these states will happen within the next decade. In the works is a well-organized political maneuver headed by the Free State Project. Already, more than 1,500 Libertarians have signed a pledge to move to the soon-to-be-freed state once the organizers of the project decide which state to liberate. The goal is to get 20,000 Libertarians or libertarian-minded people to commit to taking over a state by moving to it and voting.
Getting 20,000 people to agree to live free is no gargantuan task, so don't make the mistake of writing this off as a pie-in-the-sky dream of the political fringe. And don't make the mistake of thinking 20,000 hardcore voters, who all believe in less government and lower taxes, isn't enough to take over most federal, state and local political offices in an entire state.
Wyoming, which would be the best selection, consists of only 493,782 people. Wyoming has fewer people than live in the tiny cities of Wichita, Kans., or Colorado Springs. Wyoming's population base isn't twice the size of Boulder County's. Would it be a stretch to believe in an effort by all the country's Libertarians to control the politics of Wichita? Nope. So it should be no harder to visualize a successful political coup in Wyoming.
Despite Wyoming's sparse population, it has as much clout in the United States Senate as does California-a state that's home to 33,871,648 people-or 33,377,866 more people than live in Wyoming. California has two Senators; Wyoming has two Senators. Each U.S. Senator, whether from California or Wyoming, has one vote on any given bill. Likewise, California has one governor; Wyoming has one governor. Wyoming has one U.S. Representative, even though the state's entire population falls short of comprising a congressional district.
Liberal Democrats-who hold the uneducated view that America is a "democracy"-loathe this dynamic of American politics. They would like to see the Electoral College vanish, so the urban majority could dominate all aspects of American government. The founders knew better than to allow that to occur. They knew that pure democracy would result in tyranny of the majority, not liberty. So they designed a system that empowers minorities so much power that they enjoy a mighty hedge against mob rule. We're not a "democracy," but a constitutional republic that employs some democratic principles such as elections. If we were a pure democracy, my right to own guns would have long ago been taken by a whimsical vote of the majority. My right to publish editorials that ridicule the majority would have long ago been taken away. If this were a democracy, the opportunity for a minority political group to take over an entire state-a state with seemingly lopsided clout-would have been nixed by now.
Wyoming is so important to the national political landscape that outside interests pumped tens of millions of dollars into the most recent senatorial race. ABC's Robert Krulwich ran the numbers in creative ways designed to give people some idea of how much money individual votes are worth in a state with fewer than a half million residents. Krulwich proved that with the money spent on the Senate race, mostly by outside sources, each candidate could have taken each potential voter to dinner 11 times.
Money doesn't guarantee victory, even in a tiny state, because the other side of a two-party political system can usually match the spending dollar-for-dollar. Human infiltration, however, can't be defeated. Imagine 20,000 voters, who each cast straight pro-liberty ballots, diluting the tiny electorate of Wyoming. Also consider the fact that Wyoming-like Vermont, the second smallest state with 608,932 residents-already has libertarian leanings. Both are rural states, where the native culture tends to value self-sufficiency while rejecting the kind of urban interdependence that statist, liberal, big-government politicians so like to exploit.
After moving 20,000 voters to a small state, here's what the Free State Project hopes to do: repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs; end grants and collaboration between state and federal law enforcement; repeal all state gun control and drug prohibition; end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain; privatize utilities and untwist big business monopolies. When all that's done, the free-staters plan to negotiate with the federal government for a return of the state's constitutional autonomy.
Then, let's hope they'll "take over" and free a few more states.
Another to consider: the Socialists of David Ben-Gurion during the earliest days of Israel's independence, 1947-48.
Ben-Gurion had the assistance of the previous British administration, of course, for whom he was an informant, sending many of his Irgun and IZL political adversaries to the British gallows, and there was the little matter of the deaths of those killed aboard the arms ship Altalena trying to provide arms for the defence of the new state, instead of just Ben-Gurion's faction, but most Israelis were so overjoyed that the miricle had come to pass that they were willing to forgive their first Prime Minister a little blood on his hands.
-archy-/-
Oh yeah, sho' 'nuff. We have the technology:
Well, no guarantees. But a chance, anyway, a chance.
Don't laugh. From what I read in a think tank paper once (don't remember which one so don't ask) that the game plan for the future is to have one giant hemispheric bloc under one government. Starting off with a N.American Union by merging Canada, the US and Mexico then adding southern nations as they can be stabilized. Europe would also be one block, Africa another (if anything could ever be done with that mess) and then an Asian block. The mid-east oil could be shared (but controled by us). The whole world ordered nice and neatly by regions.
This may seem an undoable dream but remember that impracticality and past failures never detered intellectual types, communism being an example. Also never underestimate the effects of a university paper. Kissenger used to be a Harvard proffessor writing papers, Nelson Rockefeller was impressed and Kissenger's been forming policy in the real world ever since.
Your sarcasm is noted but that would indeed be the case if the project is successful. Sad case that in all 50 states there is not one that resembles the old republic. BTW what are you doing to restore liberty? (assuming you see the need) I hope it's more than vote GOP every two years.
I am waiting to see the FSP miracle myself. I want to see what a full blown "free" state will look like. I support the project 100% and encourage all FR libertarians to sign up and show the rest of us what it means to be pioneers for FREEDOM!
Not all libertarians are pro-choice. I have found many to be for life. It all comes down to one's understanding of life. If one believes that a fetus is not life but merely part of the woman's body then choice is logical as it would be no more anyone else's business than if you had a wart removed. However if one believes a fetus is a human life then the law requires the protection of life. Also many libertarians are against Roe v. Wade because they do not believe it good constitutional law. It should be a state matter. Before '73 some states had abortion, others outlawed it. The people legislated according to their understanding of human life. A libertarian state could go either way. The key to the abortion issue is changing people's minds and hearts.
A breif aside; it is very libertarian to be responsible for ones actions. Abortion is an quick and easy out for a 18+ year burden resulting from irresponsible behavior.
I agree.
So have you signed up yet?
No borders, free movements of people. Adherents to that thought line are futuristic one worlders who do not believe in the concept of nationhood (Neither does Clinton or Strobe Talbot but they don't believe in liberty either). I have not seen official libertarian policy anywhere along that line. Some argue that there should be borders but people should be free to move about as they please. They also argue that a libertarian country would not be a welfare state and the mass amount of leaches we now suffer would then not be an issue. Valid point but the fact is we are a welfare state and the leaches vote democrat so supporting unregulated immagration is self defeating for libertarians and therefore illogical. There are libertarians who believe in nationhood and defense is one of the few legitimate functions of the Fed and secure borders is intregal to defense. These people also believe that a nation has the right to regulate who comes in and in what numbers. Being an American is not a basic human right ordained by God.
Trade: I am squishy on this one. Liberty means we should be free to do business with whom we please but "free trade" as delivered by the 2 parties is anything but that and seems to be more of a racket designed to benefit special interests. From a security standpoint if our national defense supplies are mostly made overseas we are not secure however if we didn't try to be run the world we would not have a need to be so worried. I like the concept of free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. Good will to all - and a strong defense. Early on our nation had no income tax and tariffs on imports made for a lot of the revenue. But all this is not now the case and who cares what I think.
A kinder, gentler oligarchy...
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.