Reason.com
New at Reason
A Free State extravaganza for the holiday week:
Brian Doherty checks in on the Free State Project's move to the Live Free Or Die State. And Jackson Kuhl looks back on the brief history of the State of Franklin.
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|12.27.04 @ 2:38PM|#
The links are backward.
|12.27.04 @ 2:44PM|#
the links are in reverse order!
|12.27.04 @ 6:35PM|#
Sounds to me like the Free State Project became much less attractive once they had an actual state picked. They started in 2001, got 5000 members by fall of 2003, and picked their state. But now, at the end of 2004, they're only at 6273 members.
Another possibility is that they've picked all the low-hanging fruit.
Either way, I'm not holding my breath for a radical transformation of NH. Best of luck to you, please prove me wrong if you can, but I'm not optimistic.
nick|12.27.04 @ 7:49PM|#
Silly me...
All this time I've been trying to think of ways to improve the image of libertarianism, not piss off an entire state in the name of it. Guess I had my priorities all screwed up.
Besides, isn't this all running contrary to the main principle of libertarianism? That people should be free to govern themselves instead of having outsiders tell them what to do?
|12.27.04 @ 7:52PM|#
Sorry, the Democrats are already taking over New Hampshire. It's turned blue.
|12.27.04 @ 8:38PM|#
Jeez guys, have some hope!
|12.27.04 @ 8:45PM|#
What the two "free states" have in common is that they were and are perceived as places of refuge.
Places of refuge are great and necessary places to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there. At least you may be sure your children won't.
|12.27.04 @ 8:49PM|#
A bunch of whackaloons in one place. Great idea.
|12.27.04 @ 8:58PM|#
"One Porcupine, Robert Gibson, is already moving his computerized process-serving corporation, Corbadex, up to Manchester and offering jobs to fellow Free Staters."
Wow - looks like that's really working out well.
|12.27.04 @ 9:36PM|#
Are porcupines gregarious? I'm thinking no, and I'm thinking cyberspace is the only place big enough to hold us without us killing one another. (There is a prominent Scots-Irish contingent here.)
This is not to say we shouldn't continue to have a loose and easy Confederacy. heh. heh.
|12.27.04 @ 9:40PM|#
As I read the part in Doherty's piece about people trying to build an oceanic paradise, I kept thinking about the magazine "Cruising World". Anybody ever read an issue of "Cruising World"?
There are people who spend most of their lives at sea. They go where the winds of fortune take them, change flags at leisure, live by a barter system, trade with whom they please, pay entry fees to the country with the services they need, need live only according to the laws of physics, etc. They're not a nation of permanent residents, but why should that be important? Anyone can join them, you just need some sailing knowledge, some supplies and a sturdy boat.
...and, in my case, a certifiably pleasant female who doesn't mind spending most of her life on board a thirty-odd foot sailboat--aye, that's the hitch.
|12.27.04 @ 9:50PM|#
Ken,
Olive Oyl is raring to go.
|12.28.04 @ 7:01AM|#
I've become disenchanted with the LP. Too many of its candidates are flakes who would run screaming back to their parents' basements if they won office and actually had to show up somewhere and take on adult responsibility.
|12.28.04 @ 9:22AM|#
So many aspects of the FSP are good ideas. Concentrating the 'leave me alone' vote, focusing first on the local situation, and so forth.
For all that, I am very skeptical that much will happen because while libertarians gripe much, most of us are not sufficiently incensed that we'd get up and move. Nevermind participating in protests or breaking laws we don't agree with, most are sufficiently comfortable with the current state of the State that moving from point A to point B is not worth it to us. As watchers of the economy, we largely believe that actions reveal preferences. This is the liberal's best argument. Things aren't even bad enough for the most vocal opponents of large government to bother.
The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|12.28.04 @ 9:34AM|#
Chuckling into my coffee cup here. Getting Libertarians to do ANYTHING in concert is a logical absurdity by the very definitions of "Libertarian," and "concert." With role-models like the Mormons, my polyamorous ancestors, and the Party Quebecois, who might be terrorists if they could bear to put gasoline in perfectly good wine and beer bottles, it's no wonder they're having trouble getting off the ground. As to the Ayn Rand reference, well, read her nonfiction, and it becomes pretty clear pretty fast what she thought of Libertarians, and Leonard Peikoff's lectures and publications make it clearer still.
|12.28.04 @ 4:48PM|#
Besides, isn't this all running contrary to the main principle of libertarianism? That people should be free to govern themselves instead of having outsiders tell them what to do?
If you move to New Hampshire, you aren't an outsider. You're a resident of New Hampshire.
So, no, there's nothing contrary to libertarianism here.
|12.28.04 @ 5:32PM|#
The problem I see is that only staunchly libertarian people will uproot to New Hampshire. With all due respect to the gold standard libertarians present, I'm just not sure these are the folks upon whom to build a successful state, even a very small one.
New Hampshire might benefit more by attracting the tolerant, even disinterested. Instead of "Live Free or Die" I suggest, "We don't care what you do as long as it doesn't hurt the children or frighten the horses."
|12.28.04 @ 6:16PM|#
There are people who spend most of their lives at sea...
...and, in my case, a certifiably pleasant female who doesn't mind spending most of her life on board a thirty-odd foot sailboat--aye, that's the hitch.
Comment by: Ken Shultz at December 27, 2004 09:40 PM
---
Ken,
Olive Oyl is raring to go.
Comment by: Ruthless at December 27, 2004 09:50 PM
At one time, I would have preferred/recommended Julie, the cruise director from "Love Boat" (Lauren Tewes) but today I would have to say Jeanne Tipplehorn as "Helen" from Waterworld.
nick|12.28.04 @ 8:22PM|#
Dan,
I'm sure the current residents of New Hamshire see it that way.
|12.28.04 @ 9:57PM|#
I'm sure the current residents of New Hamshire see it that way.
Whether they see it that way or not is irrelevant. From a libertarian perspective, the act of taking up residence in New Hampshire entitles you the same say in state politics that a lifetime resident enjoys. They may not like it, but it is perfectly acceptable for libertarians to do things that anger other people -- they just can't do things which violate other people's rights.
nick|12.28.04 @ 10:15PM|#
I never said it was in any way illegal, merely that it violated the spirit of libertarianism, that people should be allowed to govern themselves. What we have here is outsiders (and don't try to play semantics with me, you know what I mean by 'outsiders') coming in and through brute force trying to change the state in such a way that they think is right. And no this is not normal immigration which in no way violates libertarianism, but rather an organized and systematic attempt (or at least as close as a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarians can get to 'an organized and systematic attempt') to change the state's government. That is not a libertarian solution, that is a liberal solution.
|12.28.04 @ 11:08PM|#
Well, nick, however un-libertarian the Free State Project may be, I'm predicting that the FSP is still sufficiently libertarian to bungle this. In which case the long-standing residents of NH will be able to continue governing themselves without any libertarian "meddling."
|12.28.04 @ 11:58PM|#
I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding out much hope for the FSP for the same reason I won't be moving to NH anytime soon - my private life (career, relationships, family, friends, etc.) is far more important to me than anything in the public sphere, including pushing the reach of that sphere back and I suspect many libertarians feel likewise.
Yet, there is something to be said for the idea of concentrating libertarians so that we may gain even modest political influence. For that purpose, I propose that instead of trying to overtake an entire state, we set our sites a bit lower and start with a Free County/City Project. If libertarians were to identify and concentrate in a couple of centrally-located areas within each state, we could easily become the dominant force in local politics simply by adding a half hour to our daily commutes the next time we move; a much smaller commitment that moving across the country and a potential springboard for greater objectives. To facilitate coordination and publicity, a national organization which identifies locations and provides info and support for libertarians moving to new areas would probably be desireable. It would also be less likely to create a counter-movement, since relocating out of a libertarian area would be as easy as moving in.
Thoughts? Feel free to drop me a line at the associated email address.
|12.29.04 @ 4:41AM|#
Matt XIV:
FSP set a goal, which is far from being met, of getting 20K people to pledge to move to the state the group chose. Even in a state as small as NH, that is nowhere near enough to take over the place, and unless you know about secret militias planning to rig state elections, that "brute force" crack is uncalled for. The Free Staters hope that concentrating a critical mass of like-minded people will make it easier to sell liberty to their new neighbors, who, given the history of the place, may be naturally sympathetic anyway.
If you RTFA, you will note, starting with:
Some heated opposition to the FSP is already evident, provoked by a splinter group called the Free Town Project.
that some are attempting to concentrate in one town, and that does startle the locals. There's no persuasive power in trying a Rajneesh-style takeover a la Antelope, OR.
The problem with trying to "libertarianize" a county, town or village is that local governments are creatures of the state. Should that tactic become successful, status quo supporters will move to get the state legislature, where they are sure to still be a majority, to tie the hands of the smaller units of govt., by mandating certain types of regulations, taking away discretion about which kinds of services have to be provided, etc. As a practical matter, most people will have to make a living, and the smaller the economic area people are encouraged to move to, the less likely they will be hired or be able to set up a business at a suitable level of income.
I'm not ready to drop my life and move to the Granite State, but it does have some appeal.
BTW, one of the Warren Court era SCOTUS cases established that, for purposes of voting and receiving welfare benefits, states couldn't set residency requirements greater than 30 days. See:
DUNN v. BLUMSTEIN, 405 U.S. 330 (1972)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=405+&page=330
The Voting Rights Act had previously limited residency limits for federal elections. Combine the residency limits with the 14th Amendment,
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
and anyone citizen of one state can become a citizen of another merely by moving there. The trick with an FSP-type program is to get people who really want to give it a shot. Flooding an area with people who are really transients or tourists in order to elect someone to office has been tried, but I don't think it has actually worked, and it couldn't be sustained, anyway.
Sometimes a place becomes popular with certain kinds of people: gays in SF, artists in New Mexico, wannabe actroids in Hollywood and Manhattan. They don't have to be an instant majority to leaven the place and influence its culture and politics.
Kevin
|12.29.04 @ 11:31AM|#
In the words of Booker T. Washington, "Put down your buckets where your are!"
The ideal state is H&R, and we're already there!