Posted on 06/09/2003 10:41:16 PM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Actually, garbage collection is Very easy to privatize. It's private in most towns, maybe not in cities, but there's no reason a company can't collect trash for payment.
Well, at least it will be clear then as to where liberty stands, or doesn't.
It would mean time to go 'Jeffersonian' on them.
I agree. I am a native Coloradan now living in VT for a little over a year. The "I'm a Vemontah, I do what I wanta" principle of individuality would have them cut off their noses to spite their face.
On the other hand, if the FSP understood this dynamic and came in as good neighbors, not too heavy handed, they might gain some real traction. Old time Vermonters have just about had all they can stomach of liberal flatlander policies. This state is an economic basketcase ready to implode. If the FSP could turn VT around, right in the heart of New England la la land, it would be hard for the nation to ignore. Liberalism exposed for the total failure it is.
I would deny that Libertarians have taken over California!
Heh. I think the mention of Libertarians with respect to California was more a request that they take over (under the auspices of the FSP), rather than an observation that they were already in control.
One look around this "Golden State" and one can see the damage of the Dems everywhere...up to and including the energy "crisis," the highest sales tax in the nation, the coddling of "undocumented workers" (AKA - illegal immigrants), the most virulent anti-business regulations and legislation, and the most unAmerican anti-Second Amendment tripe around.
Curiously enough, I do think that the Libertarians would do a better job of running things at the start...but ultimately the state would simply self-destruct faster than it is at the present time.
-Jay
Hard to say for sure. Judging from some of the things I've read by various Libertarian scribes, I don't know that there is even a consistent view of this issue among the Libertarian rank and file.
-Jay
The Feds would crush that FASTER than the LP
Lol, no quicker way imaginable to mobilize the 20 million deer rifle army! ;P
I can't deny that, it's true.
It's also pretty much the same in practice as the "amnesty every couple of years" which is the Republican policy. So what about it?
I don't recall the amnesty practice being Republican in nature. Indeed, in California the phenomenon appears to occur every 7 to 8 years and seems to be the exclusive domain of the Democrats (no doubt to increase their voting base).
All that said, I don't think the two (amnesty vs. open borders) are the same in practice or outcome. The former is like a roof with a thousand small holes in a rainstorm. The latter is like having one huge gaping hole in a roof in a rainstorm...and being told that it's an improvement since there are fewer holes.
-Jay
Paragraphs are a needless government intrusion onto an individual's right to post unreadable stuff. Only statists and looters insist on paragraphs.
Not at all.
http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.html
The point is that illegal immigration is driven by large welfare payments. Were the welfare payments ended, there would be less immgration of people coming here only for handouts. People immigrating to the U.S. to work are far less a problem.
Your point is well-made and well-taken. And I concur that the welfare bit needs to end, but we cannot discount that public opinion is an emotional (rather than logical) beast. A few stories in the media about how some "poor 'undocumented worker'" being denied assistance will generally succeed in painting such a policy as "mean-spirited" and its practioners as Evil White Men Who Put Money Ahead of Humanity, yadda-yadda-yadda. Then the masses will be swayed by even more horror stories to the point that we'll have both open borders and a renewed monetary drain on the citizenry.
This is more realistic than our present immigration policy of mostly allowing in people who'll vote Democrat.
All told, I am hard-pressed to disagree that anything is better than our current system. I personally subscribe to the unrealistic notion of border closure. I know it'll never come to pass, but it's the only solution that makes sense to me.
In other areas, the Libertarians are less realistic. I strongly disagree with the Libertarians' position on defense and foreign intervention. Even if we withdrew from the world, many would still hate and attack us.
We are in violent agreement here! ;)
-Jay
Nope, but I seem to remember something about an aborted secession attempt there or something like that.
Just goes to show you how deeply and scientifically a so-called "political scientist" thinks about government.
You ARE going to get rid of the garbage collection, and allow individuals to contract with BFI, Waste Management, or their neighbor with a pickup truck to haul away their trash, if they don't care to do it themselves.
She spent years in college worshipping at the altar of all-powerful government, and she's been blinded to the obvious.
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.