Free State Project

Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Free State Project

Alright any libertarians, minarchists, objectivists, paleoconservatives and classical liberals, how would you like to live someplace where you're freer than you are now?

The Free State Project is a plan to move 20,000 people like you to one place with the goal of reducing the maximum role of government to the protection of Life, Liberty, and Property.

http://www.freestateproject.org

Liberty-oriented people haven't got a lot to be happy about when they look at the current political landscape, and not just in America. All over the world, governments are becoming increasingly tyrannical, nosy, expensive, and corrupt, with no end in sight. The best Libertarian candidate last election was beaten by a Democrat and a write-in Republican candidate with a difficult to spell name. It's becoming abundantly obvious that agitating for liberty is making no progress whatsoever, despite LP optimism. Voting is getting us nowhere so far. What can we do?

Vote with your feet! Thousands of people looking for a more liberty-oriented society are moving to New Hampshire to concentrate their efforts. Even if you don't plan to do any activism, civil disobedience, or much more than pay attention and talk to New Hampshirites to convince them that government is not the solution to our problems, there's plenty good reason to move to New Hampshire, even if you're not a part of the project.

NH income tax: 0%
NH sales tax: 0%
NH capital gains tax: 0%
NH is the 4th safest state despite having the second fewest police officers in the US.
NH respects the RKBA. You can openly carry a firearm without a permit, or get a $10 shall-issue concealed carry permit, valid in many other states. You can own fully-automatic weapons, silencers, and other Class-III firearms.
NH is the only State which doesn't require you to wear a seatbelt or a helmet. Nonetheless, seatbelt use in NH is higher than it is in bordering Vermont where such a law is on the books.
NH is leading the fight against the REAL-ID act, which essentially creates a national ID card.

The people in NH are already liberty-minded. Few of them advocate tax increases and the reason the tax burden is so low is because the taxes are so widely hated in New Hampshire.

The State motto is "Live Free Or Die." They mean it in New Hampshire. Article 10 of the NH Constitution ensures the people the right of revolution. They are not kidding around.

So if you want more freedom, less taxes, and smaller government, and you're willing and able to move, your best hope to achieve liberty is the Free State Project. Join us in New Hampshire.

And this isn't some crazy little project by a couple of optimistic teenagers. So far over 7000 people have signed up for it, of every race and every age and from all walks of life, from 60 different countries and all 50 states plus DC. This is a serious project.

So if you like freedom, check us out. If you want to help us, join us! You don't have to do anything immediately. The plan is that when we get to 20,000 signers, where we know we can have some serious influence and have some weight to throw around, where we can be sure that we'll be effective, that's when it kicks in. And even so, you have five years after 20,000 signers is reached to move to New Hampshire. So you have plenty of time, plenty of warning, you can sign it now and you'll have years to get ready to move. And the sooner you move, the sooner you're freer than you are now.

Signups are accelerating after post-election burnout. The Libertarian Party isn't making any progress, and you're not going to get any freer if you don't do something. So help us out!


Taors
Taors's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm also a member of the

I'm also a member of the Free State Project and wanted to say how great the community is. It's really like a big family and everyone helps each other out in times of need. Lauren Canario has been imprisoned for 59 days without a trial for sitting on a porch (protesting Connecticut's eminent domain policy) and the members of the FSP community have given her tons of support over the past couple of months.

I've found freedom in an unfree world by becoming a member of the Free State Project and the 1st 1000.

If you want to get to know the community better you should probably check out NH Free as well.

Thanks for bringing this up Zhwazi.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
While I don't dislike said

While I don't dislike said project, I prefer to work to change where I already live for the better. Running from or ignoring a problem has never fixed it. It's no fun for anyone when you take your ball and go home.

I also find it a bit ironic that those who support globalization would resort to isoloationism.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Seems like there are a few

Seems like there are a few 'sunshine' issues other than the weather.

Lawmakers prepare four right-to-know bills

By Chris Dornin Golden Dome News

CONCORD — The legislature has tried for years to pass an updated Right-to-Know Law that better fosters open government without scaring off the public servants who make democracy work. Journalists with tight deadlines have pushed for a statute that has enforcement teeth. The news gets old fast.
Officials agree in concept, but fear getting nailed for innocent violations. They seek something simple, clear and flexible enough to let them do their unpaid jobs.
The main problem is email. More and more selectmen, planners and school board members vet their schemes in electronic mailings to all their colleagues. It’s an easy way to do the public’s business in the age of computers and gifted cell phones. But old-fashioned debates in front of community access TV cameras have gotten shorter and shorter.
A major bill to carry out both competing goals, HB 626, was sponsored last term by Representative John Thomas, R-Belmont. It passed the House 266-41 last February, but died in the senate. This month a study commission he chairs drew up four bills to enact most of that legislation in doable pieces. If one dies, another might become law.
“Last session we thought it would be easier to pass a single bill,” said Thomas, who also serves Gilford, Alton and Barnstead. “In the end, I recommended retaining the bill because of the complexity of the discussions.”
This time his group hopes to guide the House Judiciary Committee through every step.
“Whatever we devise must work equally well for a city like Nashua,” Thomas said, “or a town with a farmer, a store owner and a truck driver for selectmen, and a clerk who does the town’s work at a kitchen table. You don’t want to shut down a community like that. You don’t want the law to be so onerous nobody will serve.”
Senator Joe Kenney, R-Wakefield, was a member of the Senate Public and Municipal Affairs Committee that looked at the Thomas legislation last time. A former selectman, Kenney helped grill him on its intricacies.
“We purposely tried not to meet, particularly in a café, because there’s a perception by the public that you’re conducting public business,” Kenney said of his career in local government. “We avoided meeting at the post office or the town dump too. Perception is nine tenths of the law when it comes to right to know.”
Taxpayer groups often use the law to probe for real or alleged fiscal waste. Ed Naile, a member of the Coalition of NH Taxpayers, has probably filed as many right-to-know suits as anyone in the state. He warned that HB 626 protected towns too much.
“We’re concerned about outside meetings (of officials). This bill allows outside meetings,” he said.
Dean Cascadden, the school superintendent for Whitefield, encourages his board to make policy in public so voters can see their intent, not just their decisions. If he emails members on something important, he adds that message to the record in the next formal meeting.
“We’ve only faced one right to know case,” Cascadden said. “We would have given out the information anyway if they had asked. Whatever law they adopt, I’ll change my behavior to comply. But if all email becomes a public record, board members will stop using it and go back to private conversations. What you don’t want is a quick vote on a controversial topic after no public discussion.”
The ironic demise of HB 626 is maybe a prime example. Senator Sheila Roberge, R-Bedford, rose as if to introduce the bill and explain its 4-2 favorable committee endorsement. That’s the normal procedure.
“I move to table,” she said, and that was all she said. Nobody asked any questions, nobody disagreed. Voice vote yes. The whole thing was over in 15 seconds. It looked like the very secrecy the bill was meant to avoid.
Senate Majority leader Bob Clegg, R-Hudson, recalled the Republican and Democratic caucuses both wanted another year to polish the legislation. Clegg feared it would have stopped any two senators from meeting at lunch.
“It would have worked fine in the House, where they have such large committees,” he said. “But two senators can discuss a bill, and it’s a violation. We allow quorums of two people. You could never meet outside your committee room. The Democrats had the same problem with the bill we did.”
Lawmakers changed the statute several years ago to exempt partisan political caucuses from doing their work in public. The only caucuses like that are in the Statehouse.
The Right to Know Law Oversight Commission has convened a couple of times a month for three years trying to hone a law that works for everyone. One of their proposed bills would hold officials liable for the “reasonable” legal fees of someone seeking public information “provided that the body, agency or person knew or should have known that the conduct was in violation of this chapter.”
If the denial of access to documents or meetings is in “bad faith,” even individual defendants could be liable for those fees.
Another bill would let officials hold an emergency session without full public notice if they disclose what happened at the next formal meeting.
“Communications outside a meeting, including, but not limited to, sequential communications among embers of a public body, shall not be used to circumvent the spirit of this chapter,” this same bill adds.
A clause suggested by Dean Michener of the School Boards Association would let school officials make sensitive decisions about kids in private unless the students or their parents ask for a public deliberation.
The commission spent its first year just brainstorming about a huge topic the courts had asked lawmakers to clarify. Judges often found themselves interpreting an outdated statute.
“They were inundated with cases,” Thomas said in his legislative testimony.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I actually didn't find a

I actually didn't find a good reason in that post.

It's not running from or ignoring a problem. It's solving a problem (which inherently requires acknowledging it) by concentrating efforts. Ignoring a problem is thinking that it's somehow practical and that you're going to have any kind of effect where you are now with libertarians being such a tiny minority.

We're not taking our ball and going home. We're taking our ball and going to a different field to play.

The metaphor really sucked in the first place because the idea of politics is not to have fun, it's usually to get what you want at everyone else's expense. Competition in philosophical politics can be fun. Competition in practical politics is more often a matter of getting what you want at someone else's expense. In a game, you cooperate for fun by competing. In politics, you compete for your life, liberty, and property. Politics is not a game.

It's not isolationism either. Freestaters are not looking to isolate New Hampshire from the world. We're just looking for a way to keep our life, liberty, and property. The national LP is about as effective as a flea on a dog. Annoying, noticeable, but overall ineffective. It's not working. So we're trying something different.

Which of these sounds like an idiot is saying it?

"The LP was totally ineffective this election, and the GOP and DNC sucks, therefore..."
a) "...we should try something different."
b) "...we should try harder next time."

How about this?

"The round peg didn't fit into the square hole this time, and some peg needs to go into the hole, therefore..."
a) "...we need a different peg."
b) "...we need to push it in harder next time."

EDIT: This was a response to YN5. I didn't see Darth Josh's post when I hit reply.

As for DJ, I never said NH was perfect or anything. Its just a lot better. At least in my opinion.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
To be skeptical, it seems

To be skeptical,
it seems like a ploy to get the population up from its dismal 1.7 million. If it really is such a great place then wouldn't it have more people already?
I would think that there would be a mass exodus from Boston to Nashua since it's only a 50 mile drive. Or Windham since it's only 37.5 miles.

I just hope that the 20,000 people aren't the guys in the red shirts on an old episode of Star Trek.

"Captain, over here. I've found something. AAAAGGGGHHHH!"

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
When the project started

When the project started they didn't know what state they were going to choose. After a few thousand joined (I don't recall exactly how many...I'm thinking either 2000 or 5000), they took a vote to determine which state to move to, based on the 10 lowest population states. NH won the vote. So it's not a ploy by a bunch of New Hampshirites trying to get the population up.


FTL_Ian
FTL_Ian's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I prefer to work to

Quote:
I prefer to work to change where I already live for the better.

This strategy has been tried for decades and is a proven failure, hence, the Free State Project. Working for change where you are is going to get harder than ever as the best activists continue to be siphoned off to New Hampshire. I hope you eventually realize the futility of your methods and come home to NH.

Quote:
Running from or ignoring a problem has never fixed it.

As was stated earlier, we're not running from a problem (government), we're regrouping in one place to make a stand for Liberty.

Finally, there is nothing isolationist about Liberty. Liberty advocates want open borders and trade with all who wish to trade.

I invite anyone who is fed up with the consistent lack of progress towards Liberty in their area to look into the Free State Project at http://freestateproject.org . I moved to NH in September and only regret that I didn't come sooner.


Bjxrn
Bjxrn's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2006-07-26
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
While I don't dislike said project, I prefer to work to change where I already live for the better. Running from or ignoring a problem has never fixed it. It's no fun for anyone when you take your ball and go home.

I also find it a bit ironic that those who support globalization would resort to isoloationism.

There is also something to be said about creating a libertarian stronghold in the freest state in the union, and keeping it as free as possible when the rest of the world is going the other way.

Is it better to have loved and lost?


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Bjxrn wrote:There is also

Bjxrn wrote:
There is also something to be said about creating a libertarian stronghold in the freest state in the union, and keeping it as free as possible when the rest of the world is going the other way.

I dunno... I mean, what the alternative?
Remaining scatter and effectively unable to change anything anywhere?

If you have one succesful free state, you can benefit from it even if you don't live there.
At the very least you will be able to show it as an example to all the people claiming you need someone from above to guide you through your life by the hand, in order to survive.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Hi Ian!

Hi Ian!

In case nobody knows, Ian is a syndicated radio talk show host on 18 radio stations and uncounted numbers of steam listeners. His show is called Free Talk Live.

I have no idea how he found this place. But listen to a few shows.

Edit: Ah, he's having Brian Flemming on the show tomorrow for Blasphemy Challenge. He prolly found this place through there.


Bjxrn
Bjxrn's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2006-07-26
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:Hi Ian! In case

Zhwazi wrote:
Hi Ian!

In case nobody knows, Ian is a syndicated radio talk show host on 18 radio stations and uncounted numbers of steam listeners. His show is called Free Talk Live.

I have no idea how he found this place. But listen to a few shows.

Edit: Ah, he's having Brian Flemming on the show tomorrow for Blasphemy Challenge. He prolly found this place through there.

I second Zhwazis Hi to Ian, I have listened to FTL a few times and it is cool to see Ian on this board.

Is it better to have loved and lost?


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Eh, look, I won't say that

Eh, look, I won't say that if such a state were established that I wouldn't be one of the first in line to move there. I do understand the attraction, but I think we can do more good for more people by standing our ground and fighting.

I liken it to some people getting together and saying, let's form an atheist state. Fine and dandy, but all you've really done is surround yourselves wtih people intent on destroying you. I'm a firm believer that the only way to fundamentally change things is from within, from the ground up, and it all starts with basic education.

Look, I think any libertine can see complete globalization as the inevitable future, but I think isolating ourselves would simply delay that. Sure, we could go off and form a free-market "commune" someplace, but what would that change? How long could it really last? What we want economically, requires global change, not hiding and building walls. What we want civily tends to go hand in hand with economic prosperity. Right?

I want a global free-market, not tribalism - and perhaps that's why I disagree with you guys?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
It's no more isolationist

It's no more isolationist than the very existence of countries and states is isolationist. Countries and states set the rules for their territory. We want different rules than most people. It's not isolationism, it's just how political division works.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:It's no more

Zhwazi wrote:
It's no more isolationist than the very existence of countries and states is isolationist.

I understand that, and that's where and why I find fault. I want a world without arbitrary and imaginary lines in the dirt unless they are around private property - those are the only fences we need, all others simply get in the way of free trade and cause people to get shot or blown up for no good reason. We should be working to dissolve political and economic borders, not get into the practice of creating more - this ultimately works against us and simply promotes tribalism. What you propose seems to me like one step forward and two steps back.

 

Quote:
Countries and states set the rules for their territory. We want different rules than most people. It's not isolationism, it's just how political division works.

 That sort of division is isolationism, and it flies in the face of a desire for a true global free-market.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10360
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A nice idea, but NH is

A nice idea, but NH is still under federal law. From what I can see, the feds tend to mess in every state regardless of local laws. For example, I understand California made marijuana practically legal. But people there still go to jail for it because of federal policing.

And the implied future intent is not very realistic(granted I may be off, but I can see no reason to need to have people to commit without intending to gain voting power by doing so, especially after reading the "statement of intent" ). Even if New Hampshire were able to secede(which I see as unlikely at best until the inevitable breakup of the US), it doesn't have the resources to survive as a seperate nation. A look at the NH Department of Resources and Economic Development page says they depend mostly on trees and tourism. As a Canadian, I can tell you the US is downright nasty when it comes to lumber, so the trees wouldn't make the newly founded country nearly as much money as it does now. And tourism would dry up instantly, as Americans were discouraged to travel there for such purposes(much like Cuba) in an attempt to force NH back into the fold economically.  

I've done lots of thinking over the years on the prospect of creating a new nation or having a province or state seperate and become independant of it's parent country, but the process requires more forward thinking than appears to be the case here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

I understand that, and that's where and why I find fault.

It's also a fault with your plan of staying where you are and advocating liberty. Except we're going to be actually getting people to listen and run libertarians for office. 

Quote:
I want a world without arbitrary and imaginary lines in the dirt unless they are around private property - those are the only fences we need, all others simply get in the way of free trade and cause people to get shot or blown up for no good reason. We should be working to dissolve political and economic borders, not get into the practice of creating more - this ultimately works against us and simply promotes tribalism. What you propose seems to me like one step forward and two steps back.

How does what you propose not have this problem? I want the same thing. It's a problem we have to deal with until such time comes as we get rid of the problem. 

Quote:
That sort of division is isolationism, and it flies in the face of a desire for a true global free-market.

So let me get this straight - As long as political division exists, any movement toward liberty in any one division and not in all of them at once flies in the face of the free market?  Are you serious?


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi

Zhwazi wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

I understand that, and that's where and why I find fault.

It's also a fault with your plan of staying where you are and advocating liberty. Except we're going to be actually getting people to listen and run libertarians for office. 

 Well, you'll be getting liberty advocates to run in a setting where they are surrounded by like minded people. Seems pretty moot in that regard. I simply think gradually educating and changing minds is more effective and permanent - it's the same attitude I take regarding religion.

 I'm sure you might say that demonstrating that this sort of liberated society is viable would give it clout, but I'm sure socialistic hippies who form communes think the same thing before they get completely ignored and forgotten.

 Eh, look, I'm not knocking the goals we both share or your optimism, I'm simply saying I don't think it's a way to bring about fundamental change - then again, plenty of atheists say that about the RRS and our methods, so what the fuck do I know?

Quote:
Quote:
I want a world without arbitrary and imaginary lines in the dirt unless they are around private property - those are the only fences we need, all others simply get in the way of free trade and cause people to get shot or blown up for no good reason. We should be working to dissolve political and economic borders, not get into the practice of creating more - this ultimately works against us and simply promotes tribalism. What you propose seems to me like one step forward and two steps back.

How does what you propose not have this problem? I want the same thing. It's a problem we have to deal with until such time comes as we get rid of the problem. 

 Well, I fully understand what I'm talking about does not get rid of the problem, I simply think what I advocate is more conducive to changing the existing reality.

Put it this way though, I'm not opposed to what you are proposing, I just don't find it feasible or think it solves our shared problems. It just seems to me like running from the problem, rather than working to resolve it.

Quote:
Quote:
That sort of division is isolationism, and it flies in the face of a desire for a true global free-market.

So let me get this straight - As long as political division exists, any movement toward liberty in any one division and not in all of them at once flies in the face of the free market?  Are you serious?

 Uh, no, and how you took that from what I've been saying is pretty confusing.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Well, you'll be getting liberty advocates to run in a setting where they are surrounded by like minded people. Seems pretty moot in that regard.

The general attitude of New Hampshirites tends toward libertarianism, but most of them aren't aware of libertarianism. By moving, we're not just going to talk amongst ourselves, we'll find it easier to bring the locals to understand libertarianism because they already kinda get it and don't know it. 

 

Quote:
I simply think gradually educating and changing minds is more effective and permanent - it's the same attitude I take regarding religion.

But that's part of what we're doing. I mean, it's not technically a part of the FSP but that's what Freestaters are going to be doing there anyways. 

Quote:
I'm sure you might say that demonstrating that this sort of liberated society is viable would give it clout, but I'm sure socialistic hippies who form communes think the same thing before they get completely ignored and forgotten.

It would definately give other libertarians something to point to when someone asks "And when has any of this stuff actually WORKED in real life?"  

Quote:
Eh, look, I'm not knocking the goals we both share or your optimism, I'm simply saying I don't think it's a way to bring about fundamental change - then again, plenty of atheists say that about the RRS and our methods, so what the fuck do I know?

It is trying to bring about a fundamental change the same way you are...we just happen to be concentrating our efforts. We don't move specifically for concentrating our voting power. We're going to try to concentrate conversion and doctorine spreading efforts as well.

Quote:

Put it this way though, I'm not opposed to what you are proposing, I just don't find it feasible or think it solves our shared problems. It just seems to me like running from the problem, rather than working to resolve it.

I don't see how it's running from the problem at all. Confronting it where we have an advantage isn't running from it. And confronting it where we have no advantage has yielded an almost total lack of rewards.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Meh, well look, at this

Meh, well look, at this point we're simply going to have to agree to disagree. When/if you found your state, I may or may not be in line to join it. In either case, rest assured I will happily sell my services to the people who live there Eye-wink.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.