I never quite understood the logic of the Free State Project. An attempt to take over the entire state is just way, way to ambitious. The best way to elicit change is to start at the smallest unit, the individual, and work up from there. What the FSP really should have done was to try to all move into one small city, solidify their presence there, and work their way out. The way they have it today, there are plenty of free staters scattered all throughout NH. Wouldn't it have been better if they were all located in close proximity to each other, ready to mobilize and educate their neighbors? Wouldn't it have been more successful if it was a Free City Project?
Well, that got me thinking. What is to stop any of us from starting our own Free City Project? The question of what city to choose would seem to be pretty obvious to me as well: Auburn. The city itself has a small population, 56,000. It's a beautiful place to move and raise a family. The Mises Institute and Auburn University are located there. Housing prices don't seem to be too absurd. It would be a great city for us lovers of liberty to congregate, build synergy, and promote our ideas.
The project wouldn't be exclusively political, since I know many of us here are AnCaps (myself included). A presence there could be used to educate the rest of the Auburn population about these ideas. We could, in effect, turn the city into a stronghold for the dissemination of libertarian and Austrian ideas. We could create a New Vienna in the heart of Alabama.
I've been thinking about moving to Auburn for a while, simply because it seems like a really beautiful, quiet place, away from the major cities that are going to be chaotic when TSHTF in the near future. I would be more willing move there if I knew that others would join me in the migration. So, what does everyone think? Is a Free City Project a good idea? Let me hear your thoughts.
Why not Manchester, NH? :)
It's already where the FSP is.
...
I assume the people who organized the FSP had their own ideas as to the scale of the project. The biggest city in NH is about 100,000 people, and has many small towns and rural areas. I guess they just wanted to make a presence at the state level. The population of NH is at about 1.3 million, so if they get the 10,000 people they're aiming for, it'll make a difference.
Imagine if instead of a state, people were restricted to a city? There might be a lot less participation because people might not like a city.
These are just some thoughts. Haven't been to Auburn yet, but I'd like to go some day.
I just think, in light of some Hoppean ideas on secession, that the city will become the dominant political entity after Statism destroys itself. We might as well pre-empt (and quite possibly instigate) that revolution with a free city of our own.
Isn't Alabama a bastion of statism.
JosephBright: I just think, in light of some Hoppean ideas on secession, that the city will become the dominant political entity after Statism destroys itself. We might as well pre-empt (and quite possibly instigate) that revolution with a free city of our own.
The city will not be a political entity. Only organizations are political entity.
There can be a political entity in a city, in multiple cities, or multiple political entities in the same city.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
scineram: Isn't Alabama a bastion of statism.
That is like saying California is a bastion of farmers. Yes, but Los Angeles is not the same as California. I doubt the farmers ever go to Los Angeles, and vice versa.
Stranger: JosephBright: I just think, in light of some Hoppean ideas on secession, that the city will become the dominant political entity after Statism destroys itself. We might as well pre-empt (and quite possibly instigate) that revolution with a free city of our own. The city will not be a political entity. Only organizations are political entity. There can be a political entity in a city, in multiple cities, or multiple political entities in the same city.
You know what I meant
It would be hypocritical of me to say anything on this, as I myself can clearly not move in. but generally, its the best idea I’ve heard so far in here, with one change: chose a city in NH, as moving within cities of one state is easier that moving to another state entirely. And than again choosing Auburn would probably zero the gains made by the FSP until now. Who would come with credibility as such a low point? But I’m a foreigner: take this with a cup of salt.
Hey Joseph, where did Grace Kelly go? That was a nice illusion to see
JosephBright: Stranger: JosephBright: I just think, in light of some Hoppean ideas on secession, that the city will become the dominant political entity after Statism destroys itself. We might as well pre-empt (and quite possibly instigate) that revolution with a free city of our own. The city will not be a political entity. Only organizations are political entity. There can be a political entity in a city, in multiple cities, or multiple political entities in the same city. You know what I meant
Not very many decades ago, people thought that multinational corporations would become political entities. They have remained what they have always been, organizations for economic production.
Merlin:It would be hypocritical of me to say anything on this, as I myself can clearly not move in. but generally, its the best idea I’ve heard so far in here, with one change: chose a city in NH, as moving within cities of one state is easier that moving to another state entirely. And than again choosing Auburn would probably zero the gains made by the FSP until now. Who would come with credibility as such a low point? But I’m a foreigner: take this with a cup of salt.
There would be no point for you to abandon all your economic support networks and start over in some other place just so you can try to create a concentration of force to oppose the state. You will be able to create a much more powerful concentration of force by leveraging your economic network and joining up with people who are already close to you.
Better to stay where you are and organize.
Stranger:Better to stay where you are and organize.
Well, my idea is that City secession and Business are the only realistic ways in which one can really help anarchism. It’s just a matter of personal choice on which one will work. I myself go strongly for the business approach.
Merlin: Stranger:Better to stay where you are and organize. Well, my idea is that City secession and Business are the only realistic ways in which one can really help anarchism. It’s just a matter of personal choice on which one will work. I myself go strongly for the business approach.
A city is a business, albeit one that is the monopoly of the state.
Merlin: It would be hypocritical of me to say anything on this, as I myself can clearly not move in. but generally, its the best idea I’ve heard so far in here, with one change: chose a city in NH, as moving within cities of one state is easier that moving to another state entirely. And than again choosing Auburn would probably zero the gains made by the FSP until now. Who would come with credibility as such a low point? But I’m a foreigner: take this with a cup of salt. Hey Joseph, where did Grace Kelly go? That was a nice illusion to see
Well, to be honest, my initial thoughts as to why specifically Auburn is because of the Mises Institute. It would be great to develop a community around it, expand it, etc. But if we were to choose a city in NH instead, there's nothing to stop us from opening up a Rothbard Institute there.
As for Grace Kelly, well, she might be back someday, pending I find a picture of her wearing bow tie
Stranger:A city is a business, albeit one that is the monopoly of the state.
Now that’s a very interesting idea. Never though of it. Great insight.
Stranger: JosephBright: Stranger: JosephBright: I just think, in light of some Hoppean ideas on secession, that the city will become the dominant political entity after Statism destroys itself. We might as well pre-empt (and quite possibly instigate) that revolution with a free city of our own. The city will not be a political entity. Only organizations are political entity. There can be a political entity in a city, in multiple cities, or multiple political entities in the same city. You know what I meant Not very many decades ago, people thought that multinational corporations would become political entities. They have remained what they have always been, organizations for economic production.
Yea, no political connections and protections whatsoever..... *eyeroll*
Stranger: Merlin: Stranger:Better to stay where you are and organize. Well, my idea is that City secession and Business are the only realistic ways in which one can really help anarchism. It’s just a matter of personal choice on which one will work. I myself go strongly for the business approach. A city is a business, albeit one that is the monopoly of the state.
I think he is saying that secession (at the level of the city) and private enterprise are the best means on the road towards anarchism. I agree. Also, imagine the impact that even one successful city secession could have on a population. Even if the state reasserts its dominance, it would create a lot of discussion, especially if we do it in a peaceful way and advertise our methods as such. The aggression of the state would become manifest in the minds of the masses.
Normal 0
I do believe that a Free Town Project was tried in New Hampshire. As far as I remember they got quite a hostile reception, and it did not go so well.
Faustus: Normal 0 I do believe that a Free Town Project was tried in New Hampshire. As far as I remember they got quite a hostile reception, and it did not go so well.
Brilliant. I'm going to go read up on what they did and where they went wrong.
Brainpolice: Stranger: JosephBright: Stranger: JosephBright: I just think, in light of some Hoppean ideas on secession, that the city will become the dominant political entity after Statism destroys itself. We might as well pre-empt (and quite possibly instigate) that revolution with a free city of our own. The city will not be a political entity. Only organizations are political entity. There can be a political entity in a city, in multiple cities, or multiple political entities in the same city. You know what I meant Not very many decades ago, people thought that multinational corporations would become political entities. They have remained what they have always been, organizations for economic production. Yea, no political connections and protections whatsoever..... *eyeroll*
And why that would make them different from any other organization currently existing for production (economic is redundant I think) is beyond me. Churches any unions when they can do the same things that corporations can, They have not however, replaced the state Robo-Cop style, which is the point he was making..
Really, BP, it seems like you only drive by post and try to avoid extended discussion.
JosephBright: Also, imagine the impact that even one successful city secession could have on a population.
You're not getting my point. The city is not a political organization. You cannot secede from it as it does not have any power over you. If you try to defy the city, it will not be the city that comes after you, it will be the state that comes after you and that you will have to fight.
Any secession is from the state. There is no way around it.
Stranger: JosephBright: Also, imagine the impact that even one successful city secession could have on a population. You're not getting my point. The city is not a political organization. You cannot secede from it as it does not have any power over you. If you try to defy the city, it will not be the city that comes after you, it will be the state that comes after you and that you will have to fight. Any secession is from the state. There is no way around it.
I understand this, however there is nothing wrong with the strategy of breaking up the leviathan state into smaller units. Would you rather have 50 United States or thousands of Monacos, Singapores, and Hong Kongs?
Au contraire, the city is the most extended group of people that can still share something meaningful: it is the largest community possible, the largest business manageable. But the point is not to secede form the city, rather with the city.
A City seceding from the State is the only realistic prospect that libertarians have (in the short run, business is better but it takes at least 20 years to erect a major company). It can be managed, it can be made business-like, and it would indeed set a great example (think of what Hong Kong did for China).
The State will try to get you back, but do not forget that a major crisis is coming and, especially in Europe secession will be the order of the day a decade from now. If secession cannot be managed within the next 30 years, when a major power vacuum will materialize in the western world, rest assure that it will never be possible again.
Also, Stranger, this action would not be in defiance of the city, but the state. Second, are you implying that the entity we call a city doesn't have any authority over the individual? Cities pass plenty of laws (zoning, planning, regulation, etc.) and collect local property taxes. Would it be so bad to get rid of all this bureaucracy?
JosephBright: I understand this, however there is nothing wrong with the strategy of breaking up the leviathan state into smaller units. Would you rather have 50 United States or thousands of Monacos, Singapores, and Hong Kongs?
That is irrelevant, you must defeat the state whole before you can set up any smaller unit.
JosephBright:Wouldn't it have been better if they were all located in close proximity to each other, ready to mobilize and educate their neighbors?
I would agree. If enough liberty minded people moved to a city, they could take over the city council and declare that there would be no penalty for not paying property taxes. Imagine the prosperity! It could also result in enough liberty minded people to allow people to even defy state and federal law, like not getting a license to practice medicine or not get one to open a restaurant.
As some have suggested, I would agree that picking a city in NH may be a better option.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Stranger:That is irrelevant, you must defeat the state whole before you can set up any smaller unit.
That's like saying we need to take on the education of the whole world. If that is the case, then there is no hope.
Spideynw: Stranger:That is irrelevant, you must defeat the state whole before you can set up any smaller unit. That's like saying we need to take on the education of the whole world. If that is the case, then there is no hope.
No it isn't.
I like the idea of a city seceding. This should happen in New Hampshire as already mentioned because of the already existing Free State Project. The city should be located at the coast for access to sea-trade but Manchester should be right also.
Stranger: JosephBright: I understand this, however there is nothing wrong with the strategy of breaking up the leviathan state into smaller units. Would you rather have 50 United States or thousands of Monacos, Singapores, and Hong Kongs? That is irrelevant, you must defeat the state whole before you can set up any smaller unit.
So the American Revolutionaries should have defeated the entire British Empire before seceding from the crown?
I don't think you quite grasp the concept of "secession."
JosephBright: So the American Revolutionaries should have defeated the entire British Empire before seceding from the crown?
They did.
Stranger: JosephBright: So the American Revolutionaries should have defeated the entire British Empire before seceding from the crown? They did.
No, they didn't. They just made the costs of governing the colonies so prohibitively high with their little rebellion that the British basically said "screw it, let's go home." The same principle will be at play here. We have to make the state believe that it is not worth it to regain control over the city, either economically or through bad PR. Also, the best opportunity to accomplish such a thing would be during an economic crisis like the one that is forthcoming, where the state won't have the funds to assert its dominance over one dinky rogue city.
JosephBright: No, they didn't. They just made the costs of governing the colonies so prohibitively high with their little rebellion that the British basically said "screw it, let's go home."
No, they didn't. They just made the costs of governing the colonies so prohibitively high with their little rebellion that the British basically said "screw it, let's go home."
They didn't fight the colonial government. They fought the expeditionary force and its mercenaries.
Stranger: JosephBright: No, they didn't. They just made the costs of governing the colonies so prohibitively high with their little rebellion that the British basically said "screw it, let's go home." They didn't fight the colonial government. They fought the expeditionary force and its mercenaries.
Did the British state collapse after the American rebellion?
JosephBright: Did the British state collapse after the American rebellion?
They surrendered.
Stranger: JosephBright: Did the British state collapse after the American rebellion? They surrendered.
So did the American rebels have to "defeat the state whole" before they could withdraw from British rule?
JosephBright: Stranger: JosephBright: Did the British state collapse after the American rebellion? They surrendered. So did the American rebels have to "defeat the state whole" before they could withdraw from British rule?
YES
Stranger: JosephBright: Stranger: JosephBright: Did the British state collapse after the American rebellion? They surrendered. So did the American rebels have to "defeat the state whole" before they could withdraw from British rule? YES
I don't remember the Yankees ever launching an attack against London and crushing their government in order for them to be left alone in the colonies.
JosephBright: I don't remember the Yankees ever launching an attack against London and crushing their government in order for them to be left alone in the colonies.
They didn't need to because they surrendered.
Stranger: JosephBright: I don't remember the Yankees ever launching an attack against London and crushing their government in order for them to be left alone in the colonies. They didn't need to because they surrendered.
Precisely. In other words, they discovered that the costs of governing the colonies outweighed the potential benefits, and they gave up. A group of people in a city that is considering secession can take measures to ensure that the costs of the state reasserting dominance over the city comes at a high cost, and therefore, act as a deterrent. This was my point from the beginning. It doesn't even have to be military in nature. For instance, a well-directed PR campaign could paint the state in a very negative light if they try to regain control over the city. Or the secession could be undertaken during a time when the state is broke, and can't finance the retaking of the city.
JosephBright:Or the secession could be undertaken during a time when the state is broke, and can't finance the retaking of the city.
At no point in this argument do you involve any other actor than the whole state.