Free State Project

[Aimless]

http://www.economist.com/news/united.../livefreeortry

Enoch, you moving? Wraith? Anyone else?

[RandBlade]

I wouldn't be as I'm not moving to the States but if I was too, politics-wise (but not necessarily via other means) New Hampshire would probably appeal to me the most.

Certainly a more credible project than those that seek to declare themselves an independent state in their own right.

[Steely Glint]

The Economist can fuck off and die, along with any other site that insists on sticking a damn model box in my face trying to get me to sign up to their newsletter. Shitheads.

(can someone post the text?)

[Echovirus]

Per Steely's request:

AFTER successful careers in engineering, Dan and Carol McGuire could have pursued retirements of highbrow ease—the couple’s interests range from American history to collecting modern art. Instead they moved across the country from Washington state in response to an essay by a young libertarian, Jason Sorens, arguing that if enough believers in limited government moved to a single state (ideally one with a small population and a “live and let live” ethos), they could exert real influence.

That essay spawned the “Free State Project” (FSP), whose early members voted to make New Hampshire their testbed. This was a nod to the state’s modest scale, its culture of Yankee self-reliance and low taxes, and its unusually accessible political system, starting with the state’s House of Representatives, whose 400 members answer to a few thousand constituents each, and are paid $100 a year. The FSP devised a pledge for activists to sign, by which they agreed to move to New Hampshire if 19,999 other libertarians made the same commitment. Once that critical mass was reached, FSP members pledged to make their own trek within five years. The FSP announced on February 3rd that the 20,000 target has been reached.

In the past decade 2,000 pioneers could not wait and moved anyway. A total of about 40 Free Staters have been elected to New Hampshire’s statehouse at various points, among them the McGuires, husband-and-wife Republican legislators who represent overlapping districts. Free Staters have helped to legalise gay marriage and ease rules on everything from home schooling to selling unpasteurised milk.

Some wins were easy. A repeal of all state knife laws passed in 2010: Mr McGuire shows off a now-legal switch-blade that can be opened with one hand, noting that such knives are handy tools for paramedics. Mrs McGuire is proud of a law making it simpler for farmers to slaughter their own chickens and rabbits. The couple credit Free Staters with making New Hampshire juries more aware of their right to throw out cases that seem to offend natural justice, under the centuries-old principle of nullification. Future battles loom over school choice and over using public money to send children to private schools.

Free Staters are yet to overcome national partisan divisions. In 2015 New Hampshire’s Democratic governor vetoed a law making it legal to carry a gun without a licence, backed by conservatives of all stripes, some of them libertarians. Interviewed at her suggestion in a smoke-filled Manchester cigar bar, the FSP’s president, Carla Gericke, stresses that some Free Staters have run for office as Democrats (though they are a small minority). One Democratic Free Stater is currently trying to legalise prostitution. Others are moved by internet privacy and alternative currencies such as bitcoin.

Ms Gericke would like to see New Hampshire become a “mix between Alaska and Amsterdam on personal freedoms, and Hong Kong on economic freedoms”. That is a stretch. As a fine place to live New Hampshire attracts lots of newcomers, many of them more conventional than the FSP’s shock-troops. Still, Ms Gericke hopes that are allies on the way. Pledge-signers have e-mailed to say that their homes are on the market, she says. New Hampshire boasts a property firm founded by a Free Stater (and former member of the state House) to help project members move. It is called Porcupine Real Estate, after a favourite libertarian animal, honoured as a beast which is dangerous only when attacked.

[Enoch the Red]

http://www.economist.com/news/united.../livefreeortry

Enoch, you moving? Wraith? Anyone else?

I didn't sign up for the Free State Project - I have too much invested (both work and family) in the area I currently live to make moving practical, but in ten or twenty years who knows. If they succeed in making a state with fewer regulations, lower taxes, and generally more friendly to the ideals of liberty then it definitely sounds like a place I would want to live.

[Being]

The Economist can fuck off and die, along with any other site that insists on sticking a damn model box in my face trying to get me to sign up to their newsletter. Shitheads.

+1

And I'd like to interject that New Hampshire is exceedingly cold. I'd never move there.

[Ominous Gamer]

When people do shit like this it rarely turns out positive. With no balance the ideals run the risk of being twisted and corrupted. People are able to become more extreme with fewer checks to their power. A form of tyranny of the majority, which oddly enough is why our late justice Scalia was such a giant ass to progress.

[Being]

When people do shit like this it rarely turns out positive. With no balance the ideals run the risk of being twisted and corrupted. People are able to become more extreme with fewer checks to their power. A form of tyranny of the majority, which oddly enough is why our late justice Scalia was such a giant ass to progress.

Here's a good example of that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh

The salmonella attack was noted as the first confirmed instance of chemical or biological terrorism to have occurred in the United States.

But this was merely trying to control a county not a state.

[Steely Glint]

So, basically, they decided to move en mass to someones state in order to hijack the legislature, and make the laws more to their liking? Charming.

[Hazir]

So, basically, they decided to move en mass to someones state in order to hijack the legislature, and make the laws more to their liking? Charming.

What he said.

[Enoch the Red]

What he said.

For somebody so vigorously defending democracy and the rights of voters to decide how they are represented in another thread, one might wonder why this is an issue for you? Should like minded people not be allowed to live together or vote similarly? I somehow doubt this would be so readily dismissed by you or Steely if people were moving to a state to democratically enact marriage equality or ensure civil rights for minorities. Or were the African Americans who fled the antebellum South moving to someone's state to hijack their legislature and make laws more to their liking? Is that not also charming?

[Flixy]

Not that I find this objectionable (I wish them the best of luck, but also don't come crying when the locals start hating you for changing 'their' place), but isn't the normal way it goes that people move to a place that already has laws to their liking, rather than moving to one to hijack the legislature (and presumably what African Americans who fled north did)? On the bright side, they aren't Russians, so they won't be followed by vacationing Russian soldiers

Though this actually doesn't sound that different from what some people claim muslims are doing in Europe now, coming over to take over and impose the laws they want. Surprisingly, that is less popular with a lot of people.

[Enoch the Red]

Not that I find this objectionable (I wish them the best of luck, but also don't come crying when the locals start hating you for changing 'their' place), but isn't the normal way it goes that people move to a place that already has laws to their liking, rather than moving to one to hijack the legislature (and presumably what African Americans who fled north did)? On the bright side, they aren't Russians, so they won't be followed by vacationing Russian soldiers

They are moving to a place that has laws to their liking - it's one of the reasons New Hampshire was chosen.

[Flixy]

They are moving to a place that has laws to their liking - it's one of the reasons New Hampshire was chosen.

They explicitly say they move to NH not because they like it, but to change the laws there to their liking. The fact that NH is relatively 'free' already isn't why they go there, except that it means they have more chance to get what they want (same for the place's size). The motivation is quite different (otherwise they wouldn't be talking about how many people they need - if you go there because like the place, the number you come with doesn't matter).

[Enoch the Red]

They explicitly say they move to NH not because they like it, but to change the laws there to their liking. The fact that NH is relatively 'free' already isn't why they go there, except that it means they have more chance to get what they want (same for the place's size). The motivation is quite different (otherwise they wouldn't be talking about how many people they need - if you go there because like the place, the number you come with doesn't matter).

They absolutely picked a place where they could have a larger proportional say in the state's politics, but New Hampshire was chosen for a number of reasons. Do you imagine Free Stater members would choose to move to a state with higher taxation, fewer liberties, and more regulation because there is the outside chance that you might be able to make a change if 19,999 other people decided to join you? Of course not. It is pretty clear why they didn't chose Delaware, Rhode Island, or Vermont, (states with smaller populations still) - and it has nothing to do with the respective sizes of their general assembly.

[Flixy]

http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...WS07/130729284

In its grant application to DHS, the police department said New Hampshire's experience with terrorism "slants primarily towards the domestic type," and said "the threat is real and here."

"Groups such as the Sovereign Citizens, Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire are active and present daily challenges," the application stated. In addition to organized groups, it cited "several homegrown clusters that are anti-government and pose problems for law enforcement agencies."

Well, I guess you have to try and justify it in some​ way.

[Hazir]

For somebody so vigorously defending democracy and the rights of voters to decide how they are represented in another thread, one might wonder why this is an issue for you? Should like minded people not be allowed to live together or vote similarly? I somehow doubt this would be so readily dismissed by you or Steely if people were moving to a state to democratically enact marriage equality or ensure civil rights for minorities. Or were the African Americans who fled the antebellum South moving to someone's state to hijack their legislature and make laws more to their liking? Is that not also charming?

You don't understand there's a fine line between exercising your rights and a hostile take-over? What these people do is a horrific job in selling their project. I think a lot of people would feel a lot less creeped out by it if this was presented as a plan to add to the will to live free of unwarranted state intervention than as a plan to take the place over. Because this way it makes little difference if it's don by people who on some issues are quite compatible with me and your not so friendly neo-nazi next door ganging together with his buddies.

[Enoch the Red]

You don't understand there's a fine line between exercising your rights and a hostile take-over? What these people do is a horrific job in selling their project. I think a lot of people would feel a lot less creeped out by it if this was presented as a plan to add to the will to live free of unwarranted state intervention than as a plan to take the place over. Because this way it makes little difference if it's don by people who on some issues are quite compatible with me and your not so friendly neo-nazi next door ganging together with his buddies.

I think it takes well over 20,000 people to perform what could be be considered a hostile takeover of a state with a population of 1.3 million, especially when they are doing so entirely through established, legal channels. There are unions in Los Vegas with far larger memberships. Are they exercising hostile takeovers there?

I guess I'm just not reading the same malice you are into their platform. Maybe you could point out what exactly is so objectionable to you.

Is it this?

Anyone who promotes violence, racial hatred, or bigotry is not welcome. This is also grounds for the revocation of your Participant status.

Or this?

We welcome all who love liberty. The FSP is not a lockstep movement, requiring all who join to subscribe to a long list of agreements on every point. There is no "Grand Platform." All we ask is that you agree that government's maximum role should be to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. We welcome you and support your desire to live peacefully according to your values. We ask only that you support others in their right to do the same.

[Flixy]

I don't see the malice either, but your union comparison sucks, because that's about people already there, rather than moving to take over. Again, there's a difference between telling libertarians to move to NH because it's the best state for them to live in, and telling them to move there to change the place. Even if the outcome is the same, the latter will definitely annoy/creep out the locals more. Right or wrong (I don't really have an issue with it), you're being naive if you can't see that. And just to see how people react to stuff like that, see hysteria about 'muslims coming over to implement sharia here'.

Oh, and 20.000 people may be small in a population of 1.3 million, but keep in mind these will be by definition more politically active (after all, they are activists), and will probably have a bigger influence than purely numbers. Apparently they already have 18 out of 400 legislative seats, which isn't nothing, and that;s before the bulk moves there (assuming most even will, it's easier to sign up than to actually move).

[Enoch the Red]

I don't see the malice either, but your union comparison sucks, because that's about people already there, rather than moving to take over. Again, there's a difference between telling libertarians to move to NH because it's the best state for them to live in, and telling them to move there to change the place. Even if the outcome is the same, the latter will definitely annoy/creep out the locals more. Right or wrong (I don't really have an issue with it), you're being naive if you can't see that. And just to see how people react to stuff like that, see hysteria about 'muslims coming over to implement sharia here'.

Oh, and 20.000 people may be small in a population of 1.3 million, but keep in mind these will be by definition more politically active (after all, they are activists), and will probably have a bigger influence than purely numbers. Apparently they already have 18 out of 400 legislative seats, which isn't nothing, and that;s before the bulk moves there (assuming most even will, it's easier to sign up than to actually move).

Let's take another look at the union comparison. Let's imagine a group of people who were members of unions in State A, where State A voted to become a Right to Work state. They then decided to move to State B, a state that had not. Do you believe that by moving to this new state these union members are somehow taking over or hijacking State B, and annoying and creeping out the locals by default? How many New Hampshire residents are annoyed or creeped out by their Free State neighbors? How many even know or care?

[Steely Glint]

To be fair, rocking up to a new piece of land and starting a social experiment with absolutely no regard for desires or rights of the people already living there is the very basis upon which America was built. I presume the Free Staters aren't going to outright massacre most of the New Hampshirites then put the rest on reservations, so I'd call that progress.

I somehow doubt this would be so readily dismissed by you or Steely if people were moving to a state to democratically enact marriage equality or ensure civil rights for minorities.

Ah yes, the classic Enoch "you would be ok with this if was for a cause you liked" defense. For your information, I would not but ok with doing it for gay marriage or some other socially constructive purpose because I'm not a raging hypocrite. That's not the way to improve the world or get the polices you want enacted, though it is a great way to built resentment with the locals.

Meanwhile, the fact that you can't or won't offer up a defense of the free staters actions other than "you'd be ok with it if it was for something you liked" indicates that the only reason you're ok with it is... because it's for a cause you like.

[Enoch the Red]

Ah yes, the classic Enoch "you would be ok with this if was for a cause you liked" defense. For your information, I would not but ok with doing it for gay marriage or some other socially constructive purpose because I'm not a raging hypocrite. That's not the way to improve the world or get the polices you want enacted, though it is a great way to built resentment with the locals.

So you were not okay with the Supreme Court ruling making state laws banning gay marriage unconstitutional? I mean, there were states where gay marriage was illegal, and was made illegal by policies enacted and affirmed, in some cases quite recently, by the locals. Or is it somehow more palatable to have what amounts to legislation from the bench as opposed to, you know, actual legislation written by people who have been elected democratically. See The Free State movement.

I think what is charming is this tremendously conservative notion of yours that there is a golden and immutable perfection in something local, and anything that is not local can not help but harm - or that members of the Free State Movement are somehow inherently antagonistic to natives. I haven't seen anything that indicates either premise to be true, have you?

Meanwhile, the fact that you can't or won't offer up a defense of the free staters actions other than "you'd be ok with it if it was for something you liked" indicates that the only reason you're ok with it is... because it's for a cause you like.

I wasn't aware a defense was required. Can you think of anything more democratic than what is being outlined here? What exactly is wrong? What actions need defending? Further, is there something in my posting history to suggest I would have a problem if a liberal movement tried to do something similar? Which is not to say that I would necessarily agree with their aims, but I certainly wouldn't have an issue with their methods.

[LittleFuzzy]

So, basically, they decided to move en mass to someones state in order to hijack the legislature, and make the laws more to their liking? Charming.

It's the oldest known form of representative government, voting with ones' feet.

[Steely Glint]

Can you think of anything more democratic than what is being outlined here?

Well, instead of doing this, they could not do it. That'd be a good start. They are literally shipping in people from out of state in order to stuff the damn ballots, a tactic that would be familiar to the most ruthless and corrupt popularis Roman senator from the dying days of the Roman republic, except with libertarians instead of veterans from campaigns in gaul or parthia.

What exactly is wrong? What actions need defending?

Their plan to move enough people to New Hampshire to get laws passed that the locals clearly don't want, because if they had wanted them then they'd already have been made into laws by the exact same processes the free staters intend to use.

Did it occur to any of these self-absorbed fuckers to question whether or not the people in New Hampshire actually want to live in a state where prostitution is legal or you can carry a gun in public without a license? In a state which is a “mix between Alaska and Amsterdam on personal freedoms, and Hong Kong on economic freedoms”? What gives them the right to just rock up with enough people to force those things through the State Senate, locals be damned? I mean, they have the legal right (and should have - free movement and that), but morally that's just reprehensible.

Seriously, fuck this noise.

Let's take another look at the union comparison. Let's imagine a group of people who were members of unions in State A, where State A voted to become a Right to Work state. They then decided to move to State B, a state that had not.

That's something I can actually see happening, difference is the right wing media would be screaming to the high heavens about "union thugs" and "intimidation", and not entirely without justification.

So I suggest you keep that thought to yourself and don't give them any ideas.

[Steely Glint]

It's the oldest known form of representative government, voting with ones' feet.

If they were just going to New Hampshire because they like it better, that would be voting with ones feet. Going to New Hampshire because they think they can change it into libertopia, well there's no word for that but the closest would be "colonisation".

[RandBlade]

If they were just going to New Hampshire because they like it better, that would be voting with ones feet. Going to New Hampshire because they think they can change it into libertopia, well there's no word for that but the closest would be "colonisation".

No, they're going to New Hampshire because they like it better AND they think they can nudge it for the better based on its existing issues.

[Steely Glint]

Moving specifically to vote in another district is shitty behavior no matter your motives. I suspect the only reason it's not considered electoral fraud is that it'd be completely unenforceable.

[Hazir]

If they were just going to New Hampshire because they like it better, that would be voting with ones feet. Going to New Hampshire because they think they can change it into libertopia, well there's no word for that but the closest would be "colonisation".

Besides which, voting with your feet is a clear form of direct democracy.

[Steely Glint]

So, here's my plan to win the next Scottish independence referendum (there isn't actually going to be one for a long while because, hilariously, the price of oil just went through the floor, but humour me)

1) Get a bunch of Englishmen who passionately believe in preserving the Union. Scotland's bigger than New Hampshire, so we'll need 60,000.
2) Get them to move to Scotland several years in advance
3) They all vote no
4) If the election is close (which a yes vote almost certainly will be), they'll be enough to tip the balance.

It would work better if the Scots didn't use the popular vote for everything and had a FPTP system like the UK and US, because then you could just aim your Englishmen at marginal districts. But you can't have everything.

Who thinks this a fair and ethical way to go about democratic politics?

How would Scots react if this plan was revealed to the public?

[Hazir]

I would suggest a more realistic experiment; give all EU citizens resident in the UK the right to vote in the upcoming EU referendum.