The Free State Project

FSP ^ | 11/19/2002 | newt

[newt]

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., and work within its political system to reduce the size and scope of government. We will reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, opt out of federal mandates, and negotiate directly with Washington for appropriate political autonomy. We will prove to the nation and the world what liberty can accomplish.

[Governor]

You seem to have forgotten that ND has 2 Airforce Bases (one which is a ICBM missile control center), the Cavalier Space Command Radar site,and 3 Army traing areas. I'm pretty sure that the FED's would send in the troops to put down the "rebellion".
But the 650,000 citizens would probably welcome you.They're really independent people.

[JohnGalt]

Ayn Rand came from an economic point of view; The Free State Project comes from both the economic and cultural point of view. Many of us still believe in such Industrial Age concepts like community and are not anxious to become sovereign individuals of the Information Age.

[newt]

sovereign STATE....as was originally intended.

[wku man]

I've contacted the FSP, and in theory, it sounds good, but they have some glaring problems, too. They don't seem to have thought much about how the national government will react to their thumbing of noses at Washington (someone earlier described it as "a gigantic Waco"). It seems clear to me that a complete secession would be the only possible outcome, but the folks at FSP apparently haven't thought it out that far. Maybe because they're apparently a bunch of Utopian Libertarians, which is, of course, a HUGE problem.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[u-89]

Personally, I would prefer Delaware. Nice people, great beaches, close enough to big cities to support my line of work.

You aren't a washington pol are you?LOL. For personal professional and cultural interest reasons I agree with you about Delaware or even New Hampshire as both are within stricking distance of the Washington, Phili, New York, Boston corridor which is good for business and culture. But for aesthetic qualities Idaho is real appealing and next to my favorite stomping grounds of Utah. That said I am willing to go wherever liberty will be rooted.

[babyface00]

Previous thread, mocking and scorning this lamebrain idea.

I read that thread and saw nothing of the kind. I saw a couple of interesting questions, along with some obviously uninformed ones. Did any of those with questions actually go to the referenced site and read their proposal? Just the FAQ answers many of the objections I've seen. There also appears to be a forum on that site, so rather than speculating what they might think, perhaps those who object ought to go ask them?

Just my two cents. I'm new to this idea, but I'm surprised by the backlash, especially on a conservative forum. What they're proposing on a state-level sure sounds an awful lot like what conservatives have been advocating to me. Surely, the "benefits" of our massive federal beurocracy aren't worth giving up half our income. There has to be a better way, and they appear to have found it within the framework of the Constitution.

IMHO, and from what I've read so far, conservatives ought to be supporting this idea, at least in principle. Do we believe in liberty and limited government or not?

[Consort]

Imaginary Countries WebRing.

[Consort]

Micronational & Secessionist States WebRing.

[u-89]

If a Free State were formed the biggest expense they would have would be court costs fighting the feds at every turn. Legally the feds don't have a case but a century of liberals on the bench and judicial prejudice towards precident over law is a major hurdle but the biggest stick the Feds have is money as leverage however a free stae would be a propsperous one and that would offset the advantage the Feds holds in that instance. Secession talk would turn off far too many would be supporters. Best to work through the system. Perhaps we could be what Hong Kong is to China.

[Consort]

Seditionist and Sovereignty Movements in the USA.

[CPT Clay]

No I haven't forgotten.The Airforce Bases and Missile silos can be shut down in the next round of closures.

[ko_kyi]

You got me, I work in DC. Non political computer job.

I just went to Fenwick Island in Sept. Did some fishing, relaxing, etc.

I hear Idaho is great, as is Wyoming. Being a born South Dakotan I am happy to pass on the harsh winters. Winters here in Maryland are so mild.

[wku man]

"Perhaps we could be what Hong Kong is to China."

Huh? How would being a puppet to the national government, as Hong Kong is to the Chicoms, be any better an outcome than what we already have?

"Legally the feds don't have a case..."

Since when has that stopped national government thugs from doing anything?

"...the biggest stick the Feds have is money as leverage however a free stae would be a propsperous one and that would offset the advantage the Feds holds in that instance."

Okay, so we're back to my original point. The government couldn't use purse strings to keep the free state "in line", so how would they do it (surely you don't think DC would just smile and wave as the free state thumbed it's nose, do you)? Being as the citizens of a free state wouldn't be inclined in the first place to obey and submit to Washington decrees (and if they're not, what's the purpose of declaring a "free" state anyway?), they'd blow off any "federal" court decision favoring DC. So the military would roll in and occupy the free state and it'd be Reconstruction all over again, without a shot being fired. Nothing would have been accomplished except to reaffirm the national government's iron grip over the 50 states.

"Secession talk would turn off far too many would be supporters."

I disagree completely. Anyone who has fully thought over such matters understands secession would be a distinct possibility, and frankly I'd be worried about the Pollyannas who didn't realize it.

So, to sum it up, I like the theory, but if the folks organizing the FSP aren't going to consider all possible outcomes, they're setting themselves up for failure right from the start. Thanks, but I'll sit this one out.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[u-89]

The comaprison to Hong Kong is a loose one but the point was that while the mainland is still in control there is a level of autonomy allowed.

The Feds have been so successful at usurping power because I do not believe they have been sufficiently resisted or challenged in the legisatures or courts over the years. The direct election of senators hurt the states too but I believe having senators with a mindset of loyalty to a Free State would at least help matters. How would the Feds react overall? Your vision of military intervention theoretically is possible and I couldn't rule out a WACO like scenario at some future point given the mind set of liberals and bureaucrats but pulling a WACO on an entire state or even a simple military occupation would be politically suicidal even in our degenerate political system. Anything is a possibility in this world but I wouldn't let it worry me. That is an extreme case scenario as we are not yet the old USSR.

Regarding the secession issue I think Walter Williams had a point when he wrote of a valid case for secession but I still do not think it viable. Correct and viable being two completely different things. I believe the South had legal right to secede and today even conservatives who might agree with the right can't imagine the United States not being the 50 Unites States and the idea of southern success back then makes them cringe. The sense of patriotism to the country is greater than loyalty to ideals. The "Civil War" also set the legal precedent on this subject which today holds strong. The only chance of a succecful secession I could invision would be in an apocaliptic economic and political collapse and we have to start from scratch anyway so the point is mute. From what I have read I think the folks behind the FSP have given much thought to the matter and I agree with their approach. Why would you sit out a chance for success when staying behind and doing nothing guarentees failure?

[wku man]

"Why would you sit out a chance for success when staying behind and doing nothing guarentees failure?"

Good question, and I guess all I can say in response is to repeat that I don't like the idea of signing on with a group that refuses to realize how badly their plan could turn out. You have admitted that my (granted) nightmare scenario is a possibility, if even an small one. But the folks I corresponded with at the FSP seemed to not even want to comprehend the possibility that the worst case scenario could come to pass. I'm perfectly willing to take a leap of faith, but let's just say I want it to be a very hashed out leap of faith.

As far as the status quo being guaranteed failure, I completely agree with you. But I don't think the status quo is going to continue much longer before the whole nation is in a state of, well, let's call it flux. I think we've already flown over the edge of the cliff, we just don't know it yet. The job of putting together a free state will be much easier once we hit the bottom of the gorge.

Scouts out! Cavalry Ho!

[newt]

I wouldn't say that the FSP volunteers are ignoring the potential outcomes, but after all what is the worst that can happen? We get thrown in jail for moving to a new state and voting? You take as big a risk as a poster on FR! If it doesn't work at least we didn't sit on our behinds and hope for the best while waiting for the sky to fall.... Frankly if you find the risks to great, you are quite welcome to stay home.

[wku man]

"...but after all what is the worst that can happen?"

Well, that depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If all you're going to do is move to one state and vote, that's fine and dandy. The Jackbooted Thugs won't mind that as long as you continue to live by their rules. But if all you're going to do is pass some symbolic legislation which adds up to nothing, well what will you have gained?

If, on the other hand, you are serious about throwing off the shackles of the national government, and truly becoming a Free State, then you'd all be wise to face facts...the national government will not sit idly by and let you thumb your nose at them. It will be compelled to act, if for no other reason to discourage other states from following your lead. If the Free State has indeed thrown of the shackles of the "federal" government, legal judgements against Idaho, New Hampshire, Montana, North Dakota, whoever, will be meaningless. The only recourse the national government will have is to use force, or the threat of force, to jerk the state back into line.

You want to talk about risks? I risked a helluva lot in my 11 years in the Army, and am willing to risk even more for my freedom, and for the principles upon which this nation was founded. Risks don't bother me...as long as those standing beside me also realize what the risks are. But if they're Pollyannas who're not even willing to admit what could happen, well, then good luck. There's nothing wrong with hoping for the best, as long as you planned for the worst. Sounds to me like your orgasnization is hoping for the best, and not willing to admit that the worst will probably happen. Good luck to you all...I hope you prove me wrong.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[newt]

Fair enough..... We'll only find out in time if it comes to meaningless symbolic legislation, or a significant re-assertion of the rights of the soveriegn states.

[weaponeer]

I'm new to this idea, but I'm surprised by the backlash, especially on a conservative forum.

The FSP folks are perceived as Libertarians by many of the people on this site. In case you haven't noticed, Libs are not very popular around here.

[Roscoe]

bump