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, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
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.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
If they focused on agora, the idea would be considerably more solid.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation
I'm also considering moving to NH in the future.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would say that several really libertarian cities in various areas would be a better goal than one (sort of) libertarian state. For one thing, the former is attainable; the latter just plain is not. For another, the first doesn't attract nearly as much attention as the second.
In terms of areas favorable to agoric activity, the smaller the better at this point. Geographic definition of the movement would be a liability. And when the time comes, geographic secession will be better suited to lots of small areas, as Hoppe has described, than to a few large areas.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Stranger: What happened to rebellion?
What happened to rebellion?
I think a rebellion would be much morre probable after a free state is proven effective in the eyes of people.
banned: I think a rebellion would be much morre probable after a free state is proven effective in the eyes of people.
I agree. It would be a bad idea to rebel without first showing the people of the area what you were fighting for. If I were to get 500 people together today and go out and rebel, most people would see it as far too radical and be drawn closer to the state-essentially creating the opposite effect that is desired.
Stolz25: 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.
that is absolutely wrong. You can carry, openly and concealed, in many more places than the media would like you to know. I carry openly in VA. check out Sheck out open carry.org for more information
(Vermont has no licence needed for concealed OR open carry)
Stranger: Take to the streets and challenge the state. Once there are enough people behind you, the government will get scared and start talking terms.
Correct. But go out on the streets without enough people behind you, and you'll wind up dead or in a cage, and here's the real kicker - the people you thought you were trying to set free will breathe a sigh of relief that you're gone.
Stolz25: 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.
"Government is just a group of men and women doing business at the barrel of a gun." — Marc Stevens, No State Project
I think the aims of getting 20,000 people to agree to move first then move is a long shot what comitted FSP'ers should do is lead by example and take the plunge to go there ahead of schedule. Jason Sorens for instance should have moved there straight away. I think the FSP'ers are waking up to the fact that they probably won't get 20,000 signatories and are now more concerned to get more and more to move directly.
That said I do think the Free State Project is worthwhile. Getting a critical mass of libertarians to where they can do most good is very good strategy. I'd move there if I was an American but I'm not so can only egg it on from a distance.
Harksaw: 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.
That would be unlibertarian as no one should be forced to be paid in anything else than specified in contract.
Good Grief - you Guys scare me with your Guns n Revolutions.
To be quite frank if there was a full Anarcho libertarian revolution here in the UK Tommorrow I would likely take to the hills with my family and hide until the rape & plunder died down.
NAP My Bum!! - I'm a realist & know that most people within a hundred miles of me don't know what NAP means nevermind lve by the principle.
I really like the FSP Initiative & have actually started my own Direct Democracy Forum (SMF) in the UK, taking advantage of new central government pressure on Local government to respond to the electorate (you can't impose a rule for one without being accountable yourself ;-)
It may not succeed but I beleive is the first of many, as much as the FSP may be!!
Revolution is not the way - Rome was'nt built in a day - the tide has turned - Minarchism today - NAP Tommorrow.
UK Minarchist
Personally I think Liberty can be achieved can be achieved without firing a shot like the collapse of the soviet union and I am a libertarian-anarchist.
Also I'd add an interesting strategy for British Libertarians to consider would be to get a handfull of activists to move to one of the crown dependencies like Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Mann, Gibraltar etc. Given their population size (You take the population of any island and they could all fit them into the Birds Nest Stadium in Bejing) and their reputation as tax havens it could well be possible. The only question whether it would be possible to get work permits for those places?
Simon Lote: Personally I think Liberty can be achieved can be achieved without firing a shot like the collapse of the soviet union and I am a libertarian-anarchist. Also I'd add an interesting strategy for British Libertarians to consider would be to get a handfull of activists to move to one of the crown dependencies like Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Mann, Gibraltar etc. Given their population size (You take the population of any island and they could all fit them into the Birds Nest Stadium in Bejing) and their reputation as tax havens it could well be possible. The only question whether it would be possible to get work permits for those places?
Word is that the Soviet Union collapsed because of a mexican standoff between Breshnev & Gorbachov not because of a people's movement - maybe our monarchy standing up to the state could give us a simialar leap?, but it may be messy. There are some who beleive in a fragile monarchistic parliamentary status quo.
Last I heard we could fit the entire population of the world onto the Isle of Man but that would'nt achieve much. We should not ask folk to relocate to live with Liberty, in the end It would promote conflict, Wars & Death.
Slowly, Slowly Catchy Monkey
Simon Lote:Personally I think Liberty can be achieved can be achieved without firing a shot like the collapse of the soviet union and I am a libertarian-anarchist.
Maybe it can be achieved without libertarians/anarchists firing a shot, but you can be sure the state will definitely be firing shots.
The Soviet Union collapsed and the state was quickly re-established in a new form. I think it is a big mistake for libertarians to use Russia as an example.
The Soviet Union collapsed because they lost control of the flow of information. Once enough people were aware of the utter failure of communism it was only a matter of time.
I'm hardly advocating six billion people move to a small island but its not beyond the realms of possibility for a small cadre of committed libertarians to settle in such an island and work to change public opinion in a much more liberty friendly direction. It certainly seems a more realistic goal than forming a UK-wide libertarian party.
The state was re-established because the dominant ideology at the time was social-democracy, had the CIA been handing out copies of Rothbards books to the soviet disidents history could have turned out quite different.
Simon Lote:The state was re-established because the dominant ideology at the time was social-democracy, had the CIA been handing out copies of Rothbards books to the soviet disidents history could have turned out quite different.
Well, I wouldn't bank on a similar approach next time around. From what I have experienced speaking with people, hardly anyone reads anymore. They are too busy popping Viagra or brainwashing themselves in front of the television.
Simon "The Soviet Union collapsed because they lost control of the flow of information. Once enough people were aware of the utter failure of communism it was only a matter of time. " & "had the CIA been handing out copies of Rothbards books " = I'm sorry, I don't mean to be derogatory, but this is Twaddle
I say again this collapse was not because of a peoples revoltion.
"beyond the realms of possibility for a small cadre of committed libertarians to settle in such an island" for your info these small little islands have a greater density of inteligenzia per square foot than New York & also the money & contacts to back their political opinions.
Yes it may be possible to populate & achieve autonomy of any one of a thousand other less populated Islands, this would inevitably set back libertarianism 100 years - just look at what your media & embargoes did to Cuba.
NO - The only way is a Grass Roots Ground Swell of popular opinion originating from where they live, after all if the majority can clearly and undeniably state that they are the majority - then by Democratic Principles (& the vote) the Establishment MUST obey!!!
Democracy is the correct way, it's pointless relocating with other like minded libertarian people. The only problem with our current democracy is that it is ill-informed, sometimes corrupt & always inneficient
Lets make a true Democracy, not just Trash it.
Why on earth a democracy? A system under which it is implicit that someone has the right to violate the property rights of a fellow citizen, for whatever purposes its shadow oligarchy (I say this because it'd have to be incredibly decentralized to avoid it) deigns it appropriate.
As for the USSR, its collapse was largely due to economic causes, i.e. the objective conditions necessary for the spread of ideas conducive to liberty.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
GWilly: Democracy is the correct way,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Jon Irenicus:Why on earth a democracy? A system under which it is implicit that someone has the right to violate the property rights of a fellow citizen,
In all honesty do you think that mankind is ready to govern itself by following the Non Agresion Principle, have you ever been hungry?, have you ever watched your child die of hunger in your arms?
How effective is the NAP when next door is hoarding food & your watching your only child die of hunger less than 50 feet away from a million calories.
Jon Irenicus:... for whatever purposes its shadow oligarchy (I say this because it'd have to be incredibly decentralized to avoid....
God Bless the Forums, soon the elite will no longer be able to pass legislation in secrecy for their own gain, they will be held accountable
My idea of a true democracy actually leans more towards a theocracy, after all if the sheeple can not be bothered to understand the question, why on earth do we ask them to vote for an answer/direction?
Everyone should be given the opportunity to vote, but not everyone should vote ;-)
Ipso Facto - Direct Democracy via Online Forums
Basically because serving the needs of the many is more altruistic than serving the needs of the one.
So why not just go for socialism, then?
In all honesty do you think that mankind is ready to govern itself by following the Non Agresion Principle
Yeah.
People like you scare the crap out of me.