How about a few paragraphs now and then.
So Liberaltarians won't be the irrelevant 2% of the political population anymore, hehehe...???
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.
Libertarians aim to take over a 'Free State'
Bob von Sternberg, Star Tribune
Published June 10, 2003
LIBE10
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."
Bob von Sternberg is at
>vonste@startribune.comIf they are really serious they should pick New Hampshire because it has such a huge impact on the Presidential Primaries.
On pretty much the same note, my hubby and I for the longest time wanted to move to Vermont with the kiddies. That was until they were the first state to give civil unions to same-sex couples. We decided that was too much for the kiddies.
I hope the Libertarians succeed. Why? Because, in a few short years after their takeover they will learn that all of their socially liberal beliefs will negate their fiscal conservatism. They WILL PAY for the social ills after they take full affect. It will be a good "heads up" to any other person considering the SLIPPERY SLOPE. That or they could just go join them and leave the rest of the country alone.
On second thought do I really want them to pick New Hampshire? *~_^.
They can rename that state ANARCHY LAND.
Somebody needs to straighten out the LP on immigration. It needs to stop, at least for a generation.
This won't work. While I sympathize w/ the FSP, many small states like Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, etc. are already very free. What would the free staters do? lower the drinking age to 18? Send the militia to seize federally owned land? Privatize the weights and measurements committee?
The majority of "oppression" in this country comes from the feds. 2 senators and a congressman would not affect that so much.
The biggest problem w/ government today is that both the feds and some states circumvent their respective constitutions. The checks and balances inserted into those constitutions that check the growth of government no longer apply and now it's just a grab bag of free money.
I see the liberyphobes have already gotten to the keywords of this thread.
I respect that there is an organized plan here. I'm skeptical, but I won't dismiss it out of hand, yet. In order for this to work:
1. They have to get 20,000 committed to move to one state. (hardest part)
2. Once they move, they all have to be on the same page in the new state. Will there be a John Hagelin/Pat Buchanan fight?
3. Where in the state will those 20,000 be? What kind of legislature is in the state? In Michigan, approximately 80,000 live in a state rep district, and approx 200,000 in a state senate district. If 20,000 libertarians move to Michigan, they may get one or two districts if they are CONCENTRATED there. In my district, Republicans beat the Dems with 67% and 73%. Libertarians would likely finish 2nd unless the dems team with them which will never happen. They may get a township or commissioner at most. State senate? Only if it's close to a 33/33/33 seat. Congress, Governor, or Senate? Not unless the natives join them.
4. Resistance from the natives. Carpetbaggers aren't liked, especially when they change the system. On the same note, they can't win unless they fireup non-registered voters, get them registered, and voting 3rd party. It's possible, but again not likely. College Towns are probably the best bet for help there. That's where the Greens do best.
I have to respect the Libertarians here. At least they are trying to do something besides bitch. We'll see what happens.