The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Free State Project: too ambitious?

rated by 0 users
This post has 62 Replies | 15 Followers

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,929
Points 36,460
Spideynw Posted: Thu, Apr 17 2008 11:19 AM

 I think the freestateproject.org is too ambitious.  I think you need at least 100,000 people to make a difference in a state that has 1.5 million people.  I think they should focus more on having all 20,000 move to one or two counties and eliminate as much government as possible at the county and city levels.

Not only that, but I want to live next door to liberty loving people, not counties away from them.

What does everyone else think?

At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 2,590
Points 45,850
Stranger replied on Thu, Apr 17 2008 11:38 AM

The idea that you can migrate into a state and take power away from the thugs in charge and they won't try to stop you is ludicrous.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,808
Points 27,745
Moderator
MVP
Nitroadict replied on Thu, Apr 17 2008 11:46 AM

If they focused on agora, the idea would be considerably more solid.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 108
Points 2,460
Harksaw replied on Thu, Apr 17 2008 12:02 PM

I wonder how much they can really do while still under federal jurisdiction. I suppose the biggest thing they could do is remove the state requirement that every district have public education, creating a free market for education, which would be an interesting experiment.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,808
Points 27,745
Moderator
MVP
Nitroadict replied on Thu, Apr 17 2008 12:09 PM

If they managed to prove the viability of free market education, it would actually go a long way in helping ensure alternative political thought being fostered for future generations.  I would more or less call that a sucess.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 224
Points 3,785

Stranger:

The idea that you can migrate into a state and take power away from the thugs in charge and they won't try to stop you is ludicrous.

 

 You have to start somewhere right?  If you overwhelm two counties with minarchists and anarchists who wish to gain control of local government inorder to minimize it/abolish it, and start a movement, I dont see how that is ludicrous.  Sure, they can try and stop you, but they cant do anything if the minarchists/anarchists were to elect one of their own into local offices.  What could they do?  There wouldnt be a they.  They would become the minority in that community, and the tables would turn 180 degrees.

...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 56
Points 1,055
minorgrey replied on Thu, Apr 17 2008 1:37 PM

Spideynw:

 I think the freestateproject.org is too ambitious.  I think you need at least 100,000 people to make a difference in a state that has 1.5 million people.  I think they should focus more on having all 20,000 move to one or two counties and eliminate as much government as possible at the county and city levels.

Not only that, but I want to live next door to liberty loving people, not counties away from them.

What does everyone else think?


They kind of do actually.  If you look around for information on property you'll find that certain cities are drawing in certain groups of people.  Concord is getting more political libertarians; Keene seems to be getting a fair chunk of anarchists.  I don't think the FSP planned this but it's happening nonetheless.

Granted this thins the pool a little bit since it's not all in one town but honestly, the cities are only about an hour (if even that) away from each other.  Would I rather have libertarians next door?  Sure.  Right now I don't think there's even enough free staters there to grant that wish though.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,929
Points 36,460
Spideynw replied on Thu, Apr 17 2008 2:32 PM

minorgrey:
They kind of do actually.  If you look around for information on property you'll find that certain cities are drawing in certain groups of people.  Concord is getting more political libertarians; Keene seems to be getting a fair chunk of anarchists.  I don't think the FSP planned this but it's happening nonetheless.
 

Hmm, given this is the case, I may seriously consider joining and moving up there.  I think it would be very exciting.  I get their emails, and they have a newspaper they produce once a month.  One guy did not register his car, went to court, and the judge dismissed all the charges.  Woot!

At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 555
Points 13,730

I think it is ambitious, but by the same token worth the try.  Let the market decide if it is a long-term success or a failure.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 128
Points 2,420

some woudl venture to say it is not ambitous enough. (screw a congressional candidate, and piss on staying in the empire. Take over NH and secede!)

And was a poor tactical choice to begin with. A pure numbers evaluation between the populations of Wyoming (one other contender with NH) and NH shows that it was a horrible decision to get people to move to NH if ones goal is to tip the balance of voting power. Not to mention that costs of land and availability of it are far in favor of the former as well.

The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 123
Points 2,785
BWF89 replied on Thu, Apr 17 2008 3:57 PM

I'm planning on moving up there within the next few years, hopefully. I think it would be exciting to move somewhere hundreds of miles away from where I live now. At first I was thinking somewhere out West. But than I thought why not kill two birds with one stone and get to move somewhere where theres a good chance at meeting fellow libertarians.  Haven't signed up on their website yet because I want to make sure it's a sure thing before I commit myself.

I've been researching places in NH to live and am thinking right now of moving to either Coos or Caroll county (Northern NH). Because they both have pretty low population densitys and theres a better chance at being able to buy undeveloped land. After I move up there I plan on learning how to shoot and figured I could buy a few acres out in the middle of nowhere and build a hunting cabin to chill out at on the weekends.

Right now I'm a senior in high school (graduating in a month) and I still haven't decided what kind of career I want to persue. So I'm kind of scrambleing around checking all kinds of different job sites trying to find something I might be interested in. I think being one of those guys that goes to peoples houses and installs satalite dishes would be pretty cool. Was checking out a classified ad for Dish Network and you get $17 an hour, medical/dental/vision insurance, free TV, I believe they train you on the job, and a few other benefits that escape me right now.

ThorsMitersaw:
And was a poor tactical choice to begin with. A pure numbers evaluation between the populations of Wyoming (one other contender with NH) and NH shows that it was a horrible decision to get people to move to NH if ones goal is to tip the balance of voting power. Not to mention that costs of land and availability of it are far in favor of the former as well.

Wyoming is 10.46x bigger than New Hampshire. Meaning that if 20,000 libertarians moved to NH they would be in atleast relitive proximity to each other. If 20,000 libertarians moved to WY they would be 10x as far apart.

Also if it ever did come to secession NH would have a greater chance at success than WY. NH has a coast line where they could import goods from other countries. WY is landlocked and in the middle of the country. So if foreign countries wanted to trade with people in the newly created country of Wyoming they would have to get permission to fly or drive across US airspace. NH is a much better tactical choice.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,175
Points 17,905
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I'm also considering moving to NH in the future.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,929
Points 36,460
Spideynw replied on Thu, Apr 17 2008 6:41 PM

BWF89:

Also if it ever did come to secession NH would have a greater chance at success than WY. NH has a coast line where they could import goods from other countries. WY is landlocked and in the middle of the country. So if foreign countries wanted to trade with people in the newly created country of Wyoming they would have to get permission to fly or drive across US airspace. NH is a much better tactical choice.

 

 I wonder if secession would be the best option or to just simply stop paying U.S. taxes or participating in U.S. government.

At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 2,590
Points 45,850
Stranger replied on Thu, Apr 17 2008 8:00 PM

What happened to rebellion? The great revolutions were not made by strategically planning to take control of a small chunk of territory, they were made by defiantly opposing the authorities.

Take to the streets and challenge the state. Once there are enough people behind you, the government will get scared and start talking terms.

You people need to study 1848 and 1989.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 72
Points 1,275
Rich333 replied on Thu, Apr 17 2008 9:07 PM

Nitroadict:
If they focused on agora, the idea would be considerably more solid.

Some are. They've got quite a bit of civil disobedience, tax resistance, etc. Keene seems to be the focal point for most of that type of activity, while Manchester and Concord appear to be mainly for those wishing to use the political approach.

Corporations are an extension of the state.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 128
Points 2,420

BWF89:

ThorsMitersaw:
And was a poor tactical choice to begin with. A pure numbers evaluation between the populations of Wyoming (one other contender with NH) and NH shows that it was a horrible decision to get people to move to NH if ones goal is to tip the balance of voting power. Not to mention that costs of land and availability of it are far in favor of the former as well.

Wyoming is 10.46x bigger than New Hampshire. Meaning that if 20,000 libertarians moved to NH they would be in atleast relitive proximity to each other. If 20,000 libertarians moved to WY they would be 10x as far apart.

Also if it ever did come to secession NH would have a greater chance at success than WY. NH has a coast line where they could import goods from other countries. WY is landlocked and in the middle of the country. So if foreign countries wanted to trade with people in the newly created country of Wyoming they would have to get permission to fly or drive across US airspace. NH is a much better tactical choice.

 

My point was not proximity to other anarchists. It was that 20,000 votes has a much larger impact on Wyomings some 500,000 population than it does on New Hampshires 1,300,000 population. Lets say that only 30% of people vote in New Hampshire and 50%... hell... 75% in Wyoming:

NH - 19.5 native votes to 1 free state immigrant votes

WY - 18.75 native votes to 1 free state immigrant votes

Even with a 45% difference in voting population Wyoming beats the piss out of NH. Why did they choose NH if vote impact was the primary goal?

The only things in favor of NH are yes, its shoreline and other cosmetic things like major cities and proximity to larger metropolitan areas (though south eastern wyoming also does). And yes that shoreline may be useful in a secession scenario but I doubt any of them are so radical as some of we especailly when the STATED GOAL was electoral in nature.

 

I agree with other sentiments on getting a community of 20,000 counter econmists to actively make good on that deal. Establishing a gaults gultch like culture in NH.

The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 141
Points 1,895
Stolz25 replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 1:05 PM

I believe there were other considerations made than just population.  New Hampshire is a state that already has a lot of libertarians, no state income or capital gains taxes, has no state laws requiring public schools in a district, and it's gun laws are the loosest in the country.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 108
Points 2,460
Harksaw replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 1:07 PM

I'm also curious to see what would happen if New Hampshire tried following article 1 section 10 and made only gold or silver a tender in the payment of debts.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 128
Points 2,420

actually wyoming is also very liberal in that sense and Vermont is actually the most liberal with gun restrictions. I believe permits are required now in Alaska

 

One point i previously did not think of till now was the job market in NH, which is probably much larger.

 

The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 141
Points 1,895
Stolz25 replied on Fri, Apr 18 2008 1:31 PM

Yeah, it supposedly has a very robust and technical job market.  Corporate taxes are low or non-existant as well.

 

You sure about the gun restrictions?  I just read somewhere NH was the only state left that allowed people to openly carry guns without a permit.

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 4 (63 items) 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap