Libertarians Aim to Take Over a 'Free State'

Star Tribune ^ | June 10, 2003 | Bob von Sternberg

[wallcrawlr]

The libertarians are coming -- maybe to one of the Dakotas, maybe to Montana or Wyoming, maybe even to New Hampshire or Vermont. Maybe. A plan is gaining traction among libertarians nationwide to target the most "freedom living" state with a small population, and start moving there en masse. If all goes as planned, as many as 20,000 of them would be living in that state by the end of the decade, their numbers large enough to start affecting public policy and potentially taking over the state legislature. "We're serious about this," said Jason Sorens, founder of the Free State Project. "It's looking very likely we'll get a lot of people to move. Whether we have political success may be less likely." Sorens, who has a newly minted doctorate in political science from Yale, said that the number of people who have signed on nationwide is approaching 4,000. Once that number gets to 5,000, the target state will be chosen. Once the 20,000 target is reached, the moving vans are supposed to start rolling. Ben Thompson, a handyman from New Ulm, has signed on. "In most states, the constitution and its principles have been turned on their head," he said. "So you end up with a gigantic, bloated government bureaucracy that gobbles up and wastes 50 percent of the taxpayers' money. The Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves." The only state he's keen on moving to is South Dakota "because I think the political atmosphere would give us a chance to do something. I don't know if this is going to work -- and if I was a betting man, I probably wouldn't bet on it." That's probably prudent, said Lisa Disch, a political scientist from the University of Minnesota who specializes in political third parties. "It seems pretty impractical to me," she said. "Normally you try to take over an existing party. How do you impose discipline on members if you don't know whether they agree with what the leadership wants to accomplish?" Placed in the context of the nation's third-party movements, the Free State Project "seems pretty unprecedented to me," she said. "This sounds truly odd. Almost utopian. Where would you find 20,000 people so committed to politics that they would stage such a takeover? Most people can't be bothered to go to the polls in their own neighborhood." Born in cyberspace The Free State Project is yet another movement born and nurtured almost exclusively in cyberspace. Sorens, 26, a libertarian since his days growing up in Houston, came up with the idea after the 2000 election, when Libertarian Party candidates were blown out nationwide. Careful to make clear that he was not formally affiliating with the party, he floated the idea in an online journal in the summer of 2001. His readers began signing up, and Sorens quickly put up the project's Web site, complete with a mascot: a porcupine. "I thought it was kind of cute, which symbolizes the idea of live and let live, that the government should back off. Porcupines are not aggressive, but you shouldn't mess with them." More specifically, the Free Staters want to see taxes slashed and government scaled back to the bone. Schools would be privatized. Drugs would be legalized. Gun control would be abolished. Federal aid would be spurned. "Government should not go beyond protecting people's rights," Sorens said. But Disch warned that, " 'Leave us alone' is not a viable political strategy. Libertarians want a limiting force, cutting back taxes and dismantling government. And it's simply impossible in this day and age to dismantle all networks of a state's responsibility. You're not going to get rid of the garbage collection." Although many press accounts call the Free Staters' plan a "takeover," Sorens said "that's just the easiest way to describe it. I'd prefer to call it a migration of freedom-loving people." As the number signing up has grown, his Web site has overflowed with data and analysis about the 10 states that are on the list because of their small populations; from smallest to biggest, they are Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Idaho, New Hampshire and Maine. All have fewer than 1.5 million residents, which would give the 20,000 Free Staters a potential critical mass in steering state politics. After allying with like-minded voters already living in the state, they would take aim at the state legislature. "We don't intend to go busting into a state and take over," said Tim Condon, a Tampa lawyer who is a member of the project's board of directors. "We'll probably be the sign-wavers, envelope stuffers and precinct walkers for people who are already there and feel the same way about political reforms that we do." Once the Free Staters have settled in, they probably will be most like members of a service club such as the Kiwanis, he said. Warm reception? Although the project has been embraced by the Libertarian Party in several of the target states, some residents are leery, calling the Free Staters members of the political fringe. Some of the media coverage the project has gotten has been downright derisive. "A lot of that condescension comes from people who are already alienated from our ideas," Sorens said. "I think most people in the state we pick are likely to welcome us." Added Condon: "The states under consideration are already more freedom-oriented than other states. . . . Every citizen of the free state will eventually thank heaven that their state was chosen." He's leaning toward picking New Hampshire. South Dakota Free Stater Crystal Bogue is pulling for her home state. "Nothing happens here," she said. "Nothing happens because people like to keep to themselves and take care of their own." For his part, Sorens won't say which state he favors "because I'm trying to stay neutral. There's a dichotomy in the group with a lot strongly western and a lot pro-eastern." At the rate new members are signing up, Sorens said the 5,000 threshold should be reached by October; that's when voting on which of the 10 states becomes the Free State will occur. Sorens hopes the 20,000 level is reached by 2005 but cautioned that that remains a long shot. "I'd say it's 50-50 we'll get to 20,000, but the odds seem to be constantly improving."

[Mr. Mojo]

A libertarian state. ....Hmmmm, let's see:

1) few (if any) gun laws.
2) legalized prostitution (although subject to zoning laws. ...and taxed).
3) decrimminalized marijuana. (possession of other federally prohibited drugs subject to zoning laws).
4) no state income taxes (obviously).
5) no property taxes.

[Cathryn Crawford]

The rumors comment is referring to whom, nopardons or myself?

[tpaine]

Or, -- the queens.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Ahh...all right. I haven't been around long enough. ;)

[A.J.Armitage]

The plan calls for a vote once they reach 5,000 members. They have about 4,000. Not 100. Of course they haven't decided yet.

[nunya bidness]

The plan has absolutely nothing to do with late night rhetoric and innuendo and you know it. Shape up kid. People are watching.

[EBUCK]

Let's assume you're correct. Assume for a moment The United States is an empire.

No need to assume anything, we are an empire.

What then would happen when an empire abandons the frontier? There's far more violence than before.

Which frontier? Our coast lines and North/South borders are all that we are responsible for. Voilence outside out borders are not our concern.

My position is a bit different. There are people and groups in the world who would attack the United States even if we had never sent a single soldier beyond our shores. Who? Radical islamicists, communists, anarchist, organized criminals, etc.

I believe the opposite is true. It is only when we are the agressors, occupiers, and suppliers of their enemies that we are attacked.

[EBUCK]

I didn't say " 100 " either.

LOL...

They can't even get 100 people together to do this,

yer post #106

[jmc813]

they're all talak

talak, is that Klingon? ;-)

[jmc813]

And NOW, you're a Libertarian ? Ya know what ... you are really sounding more and more like a retread, dear. :-)

Have you read any of her columns that are posted here? If you did you'd realize that she is quite conservative. The thing is, she has an open mind and is willing to learn about other philosiphies, rather than just being automatically hostile to them.

[nopardons]

I've read her posts, I've corresponded PRIVATELY with her, and there's quite a difference between having an open mind, and none at all.

I didn't know much about Libertarians, until I came to FR. I read EVERY link and EVERY Libertarian web site, that was suggested to me, in those bygone days. I've also had YEARS of reading FR's Libertarians replies. Mine, was NOT some hasty judgement, made on the fly, about the LP and self proclaimed Libertarians. So, don't preach to me, newbie.

[nopardons]

:-)

[jmc813]

So, don't preach to me, newbie.

OK, let's address this one right off the bat. What, exactly, is your definition on newbie? I've been registered for over two years. Are people supposed to be impressed with your sign up date? Count me as someone who's not.

I've read her posts, I've corresponded PRIVATELY with her, and there's quite a difference between having an open mind, and none at all.

Did you read her posts above where she said she DIDN'T think this plan would work? Does that really sound like a Libertarian trying to attract people to this cause?

I didn't know much about Libertarians, until I came to FR. I read EVERY link and EVERY Libertarian web site, that was suggested to me, in those bygone days. I've also had YEARS of reading FR's Libertarians replies. Mine, was NOT some hasty judgement, made on the fly, about the LP and self proclaimed Libertarians.

If you read my profile page, you will see that I have many issues with the Libertarian Party myself. I prefer to call myself a small-l libertarian Republican. Have you ever read the position statement of the Republican Liberty Caucus, most of which the owner of this site endorses? If not, please do so, and maybe you'll learn that libertarians (note the lowercase l) aren't as bad as you think.

[archy]

They can't even get 100 people together to do this, nor can they decide, aamongst themselves, which state to attempt to " take over ". If THAT isn't " all talk & no action ", then I don't know WHAT is !

Signed members as of 6-12-2003: 4,087

Since the number of pledged FSP *Porcupine* members is posted on the FSP homepage and information on the rates of growth of the project is also available, I have to figure that you're either uninformed and working from very outdated secondhand information, are illiterate and unable to read and analyze the FSP info figures for yourself, or are a deliberate liar.

The FSP had around 3000 pledged [to make the move to the chosen state] members in Mid-April, about 6 weeks back and now having passed 4000, can be reasonably expected to reach that 5000 number at which point the vote for which first goal state will be chosen will be held within two to four months. The FSP projection is that will be in around 16 weeks; I'm betting it'll be closer to 8; but it'll be somewhere around that ballpark.

-archy-/-

[FITZ]

I have to respect the Libertarians here. At least they are trying to do something besides bitch. We'll see what happens.

Yes ---I wish this project would work --it'd be interesting to observe ---get rid of welfare completely, all government programs and see what happenes. Obviously certain types couldn't make it if they had to make it on their own and would head off to places like California. I would possibly prefer living in a libertarian type place ---it'd be interesting to see one though.

[BJungNan]

From all of us...Thank you Thank you Thank you!

[af_vet_rr]

It won't work. As much as I sympathize with the FSP, it just won't work. Once the state is chosen and the takeover begins, the Feds will apply economic pressure to bring that state back in the fold. If that doesn't work, they'll use force to crush the FSP.

Now why would you go and say that about the federal government? The federal government, especially with a Republican in the WH, would never interfer with the rights given to its citizens. Why if it's not mentioned in the Constitution (and technically then a state issue), I'm sure they wouldn't get involved at all ;-)

[Dada Orwell]

<> Let's assume the feds are really as agressive as you say. Does that make it more or less important to take a stand against their excesses? Does it make it more or less important to have a state's instititions and voters on your side? I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but I get burned out fast on this kind of handwringing. "What if the bad guys do this, what if the bad guys do that, the sky is falling, where's the nearest white flag, woe is us, woe woe woe...." Free Staters are initiating concentrated action to roll back government and return part of this country to the Constitution and individual liberty. They won this right-wing FR type over in about five minutes. Are you with us or those neosocialist RINOs in D.C.? Liberty in Your Lifetime http://freestateproject.org