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

[nopardons]

Dickens, like most of England and Europe, found Americans crude, unlettered, unsophisticated rubs. That position lasted well into the 20th century and, to be truthful, up to and including today , in some areas. In the early 20th century, there was even a movement amongst artist of every stripe, to get them to see that America and Americans were " worthy " !

Dickens, though a very good writer ( which is why you and I and everyone else used to be made to read him ); however, he was a abloody bleeding heart ! He was also BIG into classism. Think Gladstone. LOL

It is not always so easy, for people to move away from moronic local and even worse state governments either. It is also , sometimes, even MORE difficult to dethrone local crooks. :-(

[Dagny&Hank]

Unless there really are 20,000 "Free State or "Free Republic" activists who are willing to vote with their feet instead of their mouths and keyboards, this project has the same chance as a Libertarian running for Governor (1% maybe).

I'm afraid this project is just a self-serving attempt by its founder, Jason Sorens, to get other people to do his dissertation research for him. Instead of 20,000 he'll be lucky to find 200 activists to help him with the project. But then 200 or even 20 are enough to do the legwork or keyboard research to help him get his PhD.

At least my comments reflect reality.
TexasForever and Cultural Jihad are merely trolls or worse.

[Nephi]

Free State Project is a great idea, but it will be crippled by its Libertarian leanings.

Libertarians always harken back to the good ol' days of the constitution, but selectively. The Constitution was written by men, inspired by God, to preserve the agency of man for religious and personal expression. The rights of man are a gift from God; the people then loan that power to government.

For Libertarians to cheer in support of the divinely inspired constitution on the one hand and then, argue that society has no right to define "marriage" is an unsettling dichotomy. If one admires the constitution as Libertarians say they do, how can they disregard the example of "family" that God has given them? While the armies of Satan will chant "seperation of church and state" incessantly, a student of the constitution knows that the first ammendment sought not to remove God from government, but government from corrupting the worship of God. Therefore, for them to argue that defining marriage in such narrow heterosexual terms is an example of an over-reaching government overlooks the true nature of our divinely inspired constitution.

Libertarianism doesn't just ignore the original relevence of the constitution, it ignores more recent and relevent history as well. Who can argue that the decline of our nation can't be traced to the Woodrow Wilson presidency? Interestingly, to everyone but free traitors is how our government was funded through tariffs. Wilson gave the government another source of funding to replace the tariffs; control the people through social engineering and to wean the government from its independence born of protectionism - the income tax that Libertarians loathe. Protectionism used to be a hallmark of the Republican party. Protectionism is what made America the world's superpower in a short 150 years. That is why communists have been prosletizing the virtues of "free trade" since before the days of Col. Edward M. House and his puppet president, Wilson.

Ironically, it would be protectionism that would preserve their rebel colony. They will be unable to tax trade from other states for revenue, so the only way they will be able to preserve their independence will be to tax imports. Does the FSP naively believe the federal government won't try to strangle their trade with other states? In order for Libertarianism to gain widespread acceptance they must resolve these contradictions in their professed admiration for the constitution with the communist movement of their lips.

[Nix 2]

Number 1, I am not a Libertarian. I'm a broken glass Republican. My problem is that the people I have so many chances to vote for are RINOs with little, if any, core principals and only resort to the Constitution when it suits them. There are times when it looks as though I have truly gone thru the looking glass and the saving grace in my neck of the woods is Rick Santorum.
Most of my state is going to vote overwhelmingly for the the Philly thug, Ed Rendell. Remember him?
A vote for the Republican will be tantamount to worthless...as if the Republicans just decided to hand over Pennsylvania as a blood sacrifice. So I'm going to write in Schweiker. It will still be worthless, but I'll feel better about it than casting a vote for either Fisher, the ghost, or Rendell, the Clinton hit man.
So The Free State Project is a dream, but in case you hadn't noticed the huge influx of Somalis to Whitelandia East, take a look see and realize that they are actually taking over a state and not for an nth of any other good reason except they want to and can.
If it is a dream to reach back and bring the Constitution forward in all its well deserved glory as it was meant to be and not as it has been corrupted through the last fifty years, then it is a dream worth having.
What is oddest to me is that all of those who have criticized it, made fun of it, actually can't even imagine life as it might be if the Constitution hadn't been reconstructed to reflect a left-leaning socialist agenda, and cannot imagine what freedom must be like any more.
To me, that is intensely sad because we are becoming what we fought two world wars to prevent. Our rights are no longer are endowed by our Creator. They are bestowed at the government's whim.

[Nephi]

I sense your frustration. I'm frustrated, too. Unfortunately, you're setting yourself up for more of the same if the FSP is going to be a predominantly Libertarian movement, as I alluded to in my preceding post.

Frankly, I consider myself so conservative that I'm libertarian. Apparently, though, the only thing Libertarians believe in is free markets. The dollar seems to be their idol. So, while I feel that I harbor generally libertarian views I can't bring myself to identify with a group of people who are unable, or unwilling to endorse marriage as a divine institution and an essential building block of a healthy society.

Plus, the libertarian refusal to acknowledge our protectionist history as a nation and their unwillingness to protect our borders is simply maddening. They play right into the hands of the communists they loathe.

Communists loathe our divinely inspired constitution; they loathe the Christian heritage of our founding fathers; they seek to weaken our standard of living through globalism and they seek to divide our nation by flooding our country with unskilled, uneducated, non-english-speaking aliens.

Libertarians not only support these policies, they complain that they are too restrictive. I hope FSP move to New Hampshire, or Delaware.

[archy]

Instead of 20,000 he'll be lucky to find 200 activists to help him with the project.

I just signed on. There are more than 2000 on board now.

I'm ready to relocate within 30 days if the announced location is either of two of the likely states chosen- that's a 1-in-5 chance. If it's a couple of the others, it'll take me a bit longer, but it's certainly still do-able.

We'll see. But try not to step on the porcupines with your bare feet....

[Dada Orwell]

Hi Agrandis and all FReepers! I heard about the Free State Project discussion over here and thought I'd drop by to say hello!

I'm just an FSP member (aka a "Porcupine"), so I don't officially speak for the leadership of the project. However I can try to respond to some of the concerns that some of you have regarding the FSP's plan and its ability to deliver.

FReeper concern #1: "It'll never work"

This is something we hear a lot. But think what you're saying. "It'll never work" sounds like the kind of thing Republicans had to put up with for eight years when Reagan was in office. It's what the Gloria Steinem crowd said about the moon shot. You guys are better than that. So are we.

My experience so far has been that the FSP is a pretty can-do operation. As an anecdote, when I first got involved in September I posted an idea for building a piece of software that would enhance our operations. When I checked back 24 hours later, the Porcupines had already put together a nonfunctional prototype. Two weeks later we had an alpha version ready, and now it's in beta. Try and get *that* out of a NASA bureaucrat for under $50K!

FReeper concern #2: "The Free State Project seems too radical"

This statement is accurate. The fault lies in the current wording on our index page. But I don't worry about it. The radical aspects of the tone and the agenda won't last. As with most movements, the incoming members are more moderate than the "base." The active membership is already noticeably more moderate than it was even two months ago, and a year from now it will probably be almost mainstream.

One thing that won't change, however, is the basic principle of the thing as laid out in the statement of intent (http://freestateproject.com/join.htm).


FReeper concern #3: "The Free State Project is too closely associated with the Libertarian Party."

Not accurate. Porcupines appear to have mostly decided that it's the *LP* who's too closely associated - with losing! Wonder where they got that idea...

We *are* mostly small "l" libertarians, like Walter Williams. But I get the impression a majority are not LP members. I'm certainly not, I'm a registered elephant! Also, there appears to be a majority opinion in the FSP that the GOP is less bad than the Democrat party.

FReeper concern #4: "Libertarians favor a foreign/war policy that I don't agree with."

Reasonable objection, but the FSP is a movement aimed at nudging one *state* toward more individual liberty. A state can't set foreign policy. So this objection is like rejecting a given doctor because you don't think he would make a good security guard.

Nevertheless, some of the libertarian ideas for conducting the war effort are outstanding. As libertarian Republican Ron Paul put it, how many people would we have lost on 9/11 if we'd just let our pilots carry Glocks?

FReeper concern #5: "It's an interesting idea, and I like some of the libertarian agenda, but most libertarians favor (insert 'crazy libertarian idea' here), so I wouldn't want to get involved in the FSP."

"Crazy libertarian ideas" are exactly why we *need* people like you to come on board! The FSP is small enough and young enough for you *as an individual* to have real impact on it. If an idea is really that bad, you should be able to plant some second thoughts in our minds about it. On the other hand, we may plant some in yours!

Come on in; the water's warm, and the minds are open!

FSP Web forum: http://forum.freestateproject.org/

D. O.

[agrandis]

I think the idea is that the 20,000 pledgers are the original number. Once they are in the selected state, they hope to be an influence, and grow their number within that state. Also, once other likeminded people in other states see the first gargantuan step made, perhaps they will be emboldened to participate as well.

The revolutionaries that founded America were very much a minority at the start of the ordeal. Most of the colonists knew that it was for future generations that the sacifices would have to be made (rather than for any short-term gain), and that tends to go against human nature.

Also, as you pointed out, even 20,000 people can make a significant, local political impact. The hope is that impact would snowball. You might think of the original 20,000 as a seed.

I don't know yet whether I am willing to get on the team, but I applaud the idea, and admire the action being taken to try to make it come to fruition.

[Poohbah]

That's the problem: 20,000 would have a local impact. The only candidates for said experiment are states with very low population densities. Said low densities of inhabitation tend to occur for very valid reasons (in the US, it is almost always because of a lack of water). Achieving some sort of statewide impact would require the 20,000 to move into areas of scarce water resources (as in all water is 100% allocated to existing users). That is unlikely to endear the 20,000 to their neighbors, and is likely to be a negative influence on the attitudes.

[agrandis]

Good point - concerning avoiding states with a water problem. As I pointed out in another post on this thread, the state may have to be a cold state (another reason for low population) which would make me hesitate (I just operate better in hotter climes).

[Poohbah]

Good point - concerning avoiding states with a water problem. As I pointed out in another post on this thread, the state may have to be a cold state (another reason for low population) which would make me hesitate (I just operate better in hotter climes).

The problem is that the only states so lightly populated that 20,000 voters would have an impact all have water allocation issues. Some of them are also cold climate states, to boot :o)

[navigator]

This idea has already been tried.

The state is Idaho and it's not working out as planned.

[Poohbah]

What happened in Idaho?

[navigator]

The state filled up with Republicans who emigrated from California. Now all the politicians are incumbents and dynamite can't get them out of office. The voters passed a term limits initiative but the state legislature passed a law overturning it.

[Melas]

No, Texas is not being considered. One of the requirements is that it be a small state. Texas has close to 20 million people, it would be too hard to take over. That being said, count me grateful that Texas isn't in the running for this assinine plan.

[claidheamh mor]

Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Alaska, and Delaware don't have water-allocation issues, and they're half of the states being considered by the FSP.