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 ...
I agree that they may likely try. The problem from their standpoint will be whether to wait a bit and hope the effort will peter out or die of its own weight, or over-react too quickly, and not only inspire sympathetic reaction for the porcupines, but potential political suicide for their own political futures; remember what happened to Republican Herbert Hoover after he sent US troops in against the *Bonus Army* veterans marchers in Washington in 1932.
First, the pressure will be economic.
Again, I concur. And that's been considered and planned for. And turn about is fair play.
If that doesn't work, they'll send in the troops and the JBTs.
And that too has been considered and planned for. And I do hope they recall President Kennedy's words quoting John Stuart Mill that Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. I hope that is not their intent, since that would constitute proof of an intent to commit both premeditated murder and treason, and would constitute grounds for a regime change...and other Unintended Consequences.
You're welcome. Your conclusion is quite reasonable based on past events and conventional wisdom. This is something new with a few added twists in, so there's no established track record from which the result can be reasonably predicted, and any of a thousand factors could guarantee success or spell disaster for the idea. But it's going to be interesting to watch as it happens.
-archy-/-
And that too has been considered and planned for. And I do hope they recall President Kennedy's words quoting John Stuart Mill that Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. I hope that is not their intent, since that would constitute proof of an intent to commit both premeditated murder and treason, and would constitute grounds for a regime change...and other Unintended Consequences.
In their eyes, they having to lose sending the troops in. They'll be enforcing the Federal laws the Free Staters nullified (restrictions on guns, drugs, etc. and which most sheeple support). They'll have the public support and the media behind them. The Free Staters will only have the guns they bring in and what they can smuggle. (They'll evacuate the Guard's heavy weapons first to prevent Free Staters from taking it over). As for the army, some will not follow orders to fire on their own countrymen, but I think most will. Most people join the military for financial benefits (GI Bill, medical benefits, job training, etc.) They have no self-interest to refuse orders.
That's the reason for picking a goal state that's not primarily populated with sheeple, just good folks who need an example set for them and a little assistance in getting their own inertia rolling.
They'll have the public support and the media behind them.
Don't bet the farm on that.
The Free Staters will only have the guns they bring in and what they can smuggle. (They'll evacuate the Guard's heavy weapons first to prevent Free Staters from taking it over). ,P. Oh no. Don't *just* think guns, though that's a part of the package. And don't *just* think of such things within the boundaries of the one state, either. Remember what I wrote in the earlier posts about fighting a guy while he's distracted, as by having his trousers ablaze...and turn about being fair play.
As for the army, some will not follow orders to fire on their own countrymen, but I think most will.
By gum, the fish 'n game wardens 'll arrest 'em for poaching!
Most people join the military for financial benefits (GI Bill, medical benefits, job training, etc.) They have no self-interest to refuse orders.,P. A lot of 'em anyway, and a lot in the *tail* of logistical support and facilities personnel who keep the *Army of One* clothed, fed, housed and up-to-date on his human relations counseling, and well supplied with beans, boots and blankets.
But I don't want them to refuse lawful orders. And any chief executive who sends US troops against an entire state's groundswell political movement just for opposing his party-line dictates could expect to replace Clinton as the most recently impeached president...or JFK as the last one to have died in office.
Remember that if the president uses US military personnel in an illegal action against his political opposition, he not only invites the probability that such actions will unite ALL his opponents, but can find himself facing charges of being a terrorist, as well... and there goes any moral high ground he ever once held:
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
-- Federal Bureau of Investigation Definition
-archy-/-
LOL....as if we would ever be attacked if it weren't for our worldwide military presense...
First one proposed by Reagan and the torch continues on thru to today....
The people signing up and, eventually, moving are not likely to skip the ballot box. They will be necessarily dedicated to the effort and with 20K dedicated volunteers I'm pretty well certain that change would be rapid......I doubt that Klowntoon had 20K dedicated people pulling for him.
Please look at some of my previous posts on libertarianism. That will elimiante any confusion as to where I stand. It will also eliminate duplication in this thread.
Various histories of the fall of Rome might help build understanding of this.
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.
Let's consider this for conservative Republicans. In the Last South Dakota Senatoral election the Democrat won by 8,689 votes. If 4,350 Republicans establised residency in South Dakota, the Republicans would have one more conservative Senator today.
D'Amato spent about 22 million dollars to lose to Chucky Schumer in New York. With about a third of that money the Republican party could have offered a $20,000 subsidy to each of the 4,350 families to move to South Dakota. They wuldn't have to move there permanently; just long enough to establish residency and vote.
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.