THE FREE STATE PROJECT

<a href="http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/">Walter Williams, Georgetown University</a> ^ | updated August 21, 2002 | Professor Walter Williams, Contributer

[Nix 2]

...

The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S. to secure there a free society. We will accomplish this by first reforming state law, opting out of federal mandates, and finally negotiating directly with the federal government for appropriate political autonomy. We will be a community of freedom-loving individuals and families, and create a shining example of liberty for the rest of the nation and the world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Free State Project is a new strategy for liberty in our lifetime.

We don't want to wait decades for most citizens in the U.S. to realize that the nanny state is an insult to their dignity. For those of us who already understand the debilitating effects of a government bent on reducing liberty rather than increasing it, the Free State Project aims at liberty in a single state.

What do we mean by liberty? We believe that being free and independent is a great way to live, and that government's only role should be to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. To quote author L. Neil Smith, we believe that "no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation."

What can be done in a single state? A great deal. We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs. We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws. We will repeal laws outlawing drugs and guns. We will end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain. We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and monopolies. Then we will negotiate directly with the federal government for more autonomy.

The state where we will move will be decided once membership has reached 5,000. We are doing extensive research on all the candidate states. The vote will be conducted according to the method of Cumulative Count, which more closely approximates the ideal of individual choice than simple majority rule.

Before joining, please be sure also to check out our FAQ and articles sections, which contain more detailed information about the Free State Project, including answers to common questions like, "What can 20000 activists do in one state?," "What is cumulative count?," and "Do you think the federal government will oppose your efforts?," along with many others.

Join the Free State Project and take part in a rapidly growing movement aimed at securing liberty in our lifetime.

We don't want your money, just your signature - and when the time comes, your willingness to carry through on your word of honor.

If you would like to participate in this exciting new venture, please carefully read our Participation Guidelines and sign the Statement of Intent. To view these documents and to join, click here .

[sweetliberty]

"Each state should take back it's power and resources from the Fed and we should get back to being the Republic we were intended to be."

You are absolutely right of course, but the the last time states tried to take a stand for their rights against ever expanding government tyranny they were beaten down by brutal force. Ever since that time this beast has been gobbling up the Constitutional rights of states and individuals and more recently at an alarming rate. It has become drunk with power and will willingly yield none of it.

While you are right about the courts being a big problem, I think an even bigger problem is the way the state and federal governments have developed an unhealthy symbiotic relationship based on money. In other words, the federal government uses money to create state dependence and the threat of withdrawing it to force compliance. Very "democRATic". The only thing that is likely to make any inroads towards the end of releasing the stranglehold of the federal government over the states is the abolition of the federal income tax. If more money stays in the hands of the people and the states, then perhaps they could be weaned from the government teat. It's a big "if" though.

[sweetliberty]

Mornin' T. I was beginning to wonder what happened to you. Always nice to see your 2 cents on a thread. ;-)

[sweetliberty]

An excellent post. Is it original?

[Hostage]

Original by Sobran, posted in May 2002 on FR. It is excellent.

[CPT Clay]

This would be our last resort. Especially if Hillary! wins in '08!!!

[sweetliberty]

I thought y'all might be interested in this thread. Be sure and read Hostage's post #80. It is excellent. While this is not specifically a southern issue, the roots are very similar and, in my opinion, valid. I would be interested in your input.

[Dead Corpse]

What you two Federalists fail to realize is that this project isn't some commune. It isn't some bunch of extremist religious nutcases. It most certainly isn't a hostile take-over.

What they ARE purposing, is to legally move into an area and use their Right to Vote to change things to a more Constitutional and Libertarian footing. This will also restore true capitalism to the area.

You Federales are just quaking in your boots that someone might try to revive the spirit that first caused us to get rid of the Brits in the first place.

These Federalist/Anti-Federalist arguments have been going on since the inseption of our Republic. We are currently more Federlised than at any time in our history, and to be perfectly frank... things don't look so rosey. Why NOT try it the other way? What are we going to do? Continue down the path we are on?

[Twodees]

Thanks for the ping, ma'am. Yes, I've read about this from WW before. If he's getting it rolling now and has 5,000 people, he may very well be ready to start. This could work very well for setting an example to the other states, but I doubt that there would ever be any negotiation between a state government and the feds for more autonomy. Our history tells us that those who favor federal supremacy never negotiate, they make war.

[Twodees]

DC, those two just stay up all night drinking and trying to discourage anyone from doing anything besides voting republican as a means of change. They may come back and answer you late tonight once they're oiled up sufficiently. Don't expect too much of them, though. They usually get plowed and start tossing insults instead of debating.

[billbears]

I agree. Thanks for the post. Didn't realize Walter had the number behind him like he does. I've read Sobran's piece in 80 and I do agree with him. This point in particular needs to be pointed out at every opportunity

State government was to be the rule, federal government the exception. The states’ powers were to be “numerous and indefinite,” federal powers “few and defined.” This is a matter not only of history, but of iron logic: the Constitution doesn’t make sense when read any other way. As Madison asked, why bother listing particular federal powers unless unlisted powers are withheld?

And we can see this exhibited even today. The Anti-Federalists/Federalists debate has been going on for over 220 years and much of that time the Federalists have had the upper hand, from Hamilton's introduction of a national bank to Clay's 'American System' and implemented finally through lincoln's War of Tariffs, not only the South but all Anti-Federalists have been subjugated to an extent. The Empire has taken us to this point and is quickly running out of steam. If Walter wants to open up shop in another state and try it, I am all for it and would support him. However I would admit for the love of my state and the land I grew up on, I'm not sure I could or would even want to move out of North Carolina.

[sweetliberty]

"They may come back and answer you late tonight once they're oiled up sufficiently. Don't expect too much of them, though. They usually get plowed and start tossing insults instead of debating."

ROTFL! You have echoed my experience with them as well. Generally I avoid engaging them. I don't play with rattlesnakes either.

[Dead Corpse]

I have had "discussions" with each of them before. While I would not go so far as calling them drunkards, I am suspicious of their debate style. Bush-bots, maybe. Federalists, definately. "The Centralized State can do very little that is wrong, as long as its our guy in charge."

There are quite a few others on FR as well. They don't seem to be in much of a majority and they are easy to spot.

[Hostage]

Just to share a misuse of the word federalism, federalists: I once thought these words meant in favor of federal government. What they connote is rather the subject of "restraining" federal government. Hamilton, Madison discussed the issue of federalism in terms of restrcting it. Therefore federalism and a federalist pertains to keeping it in check.

[Dead Corpse]

Try it in this usage.

Or you can use this one from Merriams:
Main Entry: fed·er·al·ist
Pronunciation: -list
Function: noun
Date: 1787
1 : an advocate of federalism : as a often capitalized : an advocate of a federal union between the American colonies after the Revolution and of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution b often capitalized : WORLD FEDERALIST
2 capitalized : a member of a major political party in the early years of the U.S. favoring a strong centralized national government
- federalist adjective, often capitalized

As you can see. My original usage seems appropriate.

[Hostage]

Yes I see that but the subject that the Framers addressed was the subject of Federalism. They were Federalists in the sense that they saw a need for a central government but they emphasized that such a government be limited. As such, Madison, Hamilton and others would be considered Federalists.

My point is that it appears odd to put our Framers in the same category as those such as nopardons and Texasforever. I would label the latter as supporters of big government. Perhaps "collectivists" is an appropriate description.

[Dead Corpse]

AAAaaaand... if you look at how I used the word "Federalist", you will see that it is entirely consistant with the given definitions. This is sustainable because I made no mention to the Founding Fathers.

However, I would like to point out that Madison and Hamilton also fall under the definition. Particularly Hamilton. Madison was a bit of a Mugwump in that he felt there should be a balance between State and Federal power. Hamilton was a Centrist from the get go as well as a member of the Federalist Party. Neither was against federalised, centrist, power.

Centralising power concentrates power. Too much power in too few hands leads to the "power corrupts" phenomenon. The men you mentioned laid the framework for the expansion of power and abuse that we see today.

[Hostage]

Well I disagree on your last statement. I do not believe they laid the frame work. I think Sobran quite rightly points out that the spirit of the Constitution was subverted by significant events, Civil War, Wilson's income tax, Roosevelt's Supreme Court, liberalism from the Vietnam era and so on.

The Framers were concerned about invasion from either Britain, Spain or France. They saw a need to unite the States for the purpose of defense as well as exploration and claims of and on the continent. England still had troops in the north, France had a huge claim on the middle continent all the way to the Gulf and Spain had claimed the West. These claims were fuzzy and nondescript. Settlers and pioneers could not stand against an army from Spain, The French could turn natives against settlements. There had to be a unity to concentrate military power. They affirmed this unity through the Monroe doctrine. There was indeed a purpose for uniting the states.

They were very aware of what could happen and that's why they went through the pains to limit federal power. No, they didn't lay the framework for abuse of the Constitution. Their efforts helped to preserve its spirit for generations. The framework is still there, but it is undefended.

What is needed is an association of people that will defend the Constitution as it was originally planned. That means keeping the federal government checked according to the 9th and 10th amendments. That means appointing supreme court justices that will dismiss cases before it based on these amendments. As long as the political oligarchy remains in Washington as it is, the original constitutional framework will be left unused.

[fone]

I've spent many hours, days and weeks thinking along the same lines as this "Free State Project." It's kind of a hobby of mine to take an idea and work it forward to it's logical conclusion, then (if I like that result) reverse the process and work it back to the genesis: what would be the first (and most effective) action and how would this be accomplished.

A few years back I came up with this conclusion (and I'm always eager to listen to new ideas, but I'm kind of partial to this one):

I'm convinced that FIRST a state would need to pass legislation that the employer's withholding of Federal tax (FICA too I suppose) be sent to the state capital they keep what they need for roads, schools, whatever it is that the federal government has "strings" attached to (such as, say, federally mandated speed limits "or you won't get your highway funds" as an example). The State would then be responsible to send the money to the federal government.

Think of the ramifications of this: the states will become more autonomous on nearly every level. There is also a cost savings involved as the feds won’t get their “cut” first ...

The how will take a little more work and effort. What needs to happen would take a couple of election cycles but could be done. Recruit TWO people from each state legislative district, one to run for State Senator, the other for State Representative (in Ohio the total number would be 132 seats). Careful consideration would have to be taken as to if a Republican could win, there are simply some districts that are and always will be Democratic; thus, the person would have to elect to be part of the Democratic Party.

Getting the “party” nomination would be the tough nut to crack; generally that person is a Precinct Committeeman; many of those positions are open for the taking and could be secured as necessary (they also influence who gets the party nod for Congress as well). A successful campaign can be done without the party’s approval: I was involved in one here in 1996 and he has subsequently been re-elected with relative ease. I know the strategy needed to accomplish it.

In any event, once a supermajority of these folks are elected (to override a governor’s veto) the proper legislation can be introduced and passed. It would be best to attempt this in a district where the federal court would be more inclined to favor such action, I’m not sure if a lower court could stop properly passed state laws (that is almost always the downfall of “referendum” issues passed by the general population – a federal judge can give it an immediate axe).

It would be a step in the right direction. I tried to get a FReeper chapter going to just get some folks into Precinct Committeemen seats, alas, everyone was “too busy.” Looks like we are going to ‘busy’ our way right into serfdom. FRegards

[fone]

I see I am a latecomer to the thread but I would be interested in any comments to my post # 98. Thanks.

[sweetliberty]

You seem to be assuming that the federal government would take this lying dowm. When it comes to money and power that is just too much to hope for. They will rally whatever compliance enforcers it takes to prevent loosing any of it.