May 10, 2007
Please come out to Reason's smashing new DC offices on Friday, May 11, at 10.30 A.M. to hear the head of The Free State Project, Varrin Swearingen, talk about his group's effort to secure "liberty in our lifetime."
The FSP is a radical experiment in political activism that aims to reduce the size of government--and to increase the scope of individual freedom. From the group's mission statement:
The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire. We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant folks from all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors who agree to the political philosophy expressed in our Statement of Intent, that government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.
In December 2004, Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty traveled to The Granite State and reported, "Whether or not the FSP ever hits its target membership goal, much less turns New Hampshire into a libertarian paradise, it retains real significance as a thought experiment. It forces people to confront the reality of how much they are willing to sacrifice for their notions about political liberty--and how much people with different grievances against government might have in common." Read his whole account here.
And come out on Friday to learn the latest from the FSP's leader. Details:
What: Q&A with Varrin Swearingen of The Free State Project
When: Friday, May 11, 10.30 A.M. to 11.30 A.M.
Where: Reason, 1747 Connecticut Avenue, NW
RSVP: events@reason.com
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
The Christian Exodus project nicely illustrates why the FSP is a bad idea and will ultimately not succeed. These guys want to turn my childhood home into a theocracy. I can't say that I take too kindly to that. I can't imagine the people of New Hampshire feeling too comfortable with the idea of a bunch of libertarians coming in to tell them what to do.
ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to
South Carolina...
Aren't there thousands of Christians in South Carolina already?
Well, yeah, and they're already doing their best to turn it into a theocracy. But I don't appreciate carpetbagging Christians coming in and making things worse. I still know people who haven't gotten out.
I can't imagine the people of New Hampshire feeling too
comfortable with the idea of a bunch of libertarians coming in to
tell them what to do.
Lunch. Don't you mean NOT telling them what to do? :-)
As a New Hampshire native, I welcome you all! The former
Governor of New Hampshire, Craig Benson, invited Free Staters to
come and make the Granite State their home.
And Wine is right, we don't tell people what to do, we just live
our lives!
lunchstealer, not having met the folks from either project, I
guess I can't be too sure.
That said, the Christian Exodus project's stated values are vastly
different from what the TSP's are. The TSP is specifically about
not telling you how to run your life. They're so different that I'm
wondering if you were kidding.
I recognize that the FSP is not going to tell people what to do
day-to-day the way the Exodus theocrats are, but the idea of
creating a voting majority, or even a significant voting block that
would affect state politics, seems like it would at least on some
level be telling New Hampshirioles how to organize their
government, even if you'd actually not be telling them what to
do.
Again, if I was to have one or the other moving into my state, I'd
sure as hell rather have the FSP folks. But I can't help but think
that any concerted effort by an outside organization to 'take over'
state or local politics would be seen by those living there as an
invasion, no matter how benign.
And this may be residual conditioning from having grown up around
people who had very real, very active, very large chips on their
shoulders about 'damn yankees' coming down and making them treat
upwards of 30% of their population like human beings. There was a
great deal of cultural resentment of 'outsiders' coming in to
change things. Perhaps the Free State's long history of not having
institutional slavery and discrimination forcibly ended by the more
civilized parts of the country would prevent such an attitude from
taking root.
Considering the last election turned everything in NH blue and the "bans that" legislation has been inching forward ever since, we could use a little help holding the line. Do it for the children... or at least their potential future options.
I would rather have people physically move to my region to effect policy change, than have remote people or organizations dump $$ in an attempt to influence my area.
lunchstealer - as a NH native, I'll say the FSP is not a bad idea, and nowhere near the "Christian exodus" thing you linked to. From my relatives still in NH, I can verify what Eddy said - all the Masshole lefties are moving north to avoid the taxes and policies they've inflicted on their home state so they can fuck up a new one. Getting some freedom friendly people to help balance it would be a good thing.
"the maximum role of civil government is the protection of
life, liberty, and property"
I think you could probably get both righties and lefties to agree
to that, though their methods and results would be quite different.
For instance, a statist could justify smoking bans with the
"protection of life" part. Likewise a conservative who opposes
abortion. Their Statement of Intent is so vague as to be nearly
meaningless.
"...all the Masshole lefties are moving north to avoid the taxes
and policies they've inflicted on their home state so they can fuck
up a new one."
That's a common misconception. In fact, the southeastern counties
that are home to the vast majority of Masschusetts transplants are
also the only areas of the state that voted for Bush in 2004.
Everywhere else, even way up in Coos County, has turned
Democratic.
The Massholes moving to New Hampshire are much more conservative
and Republican than Massachusetts as a whole. Think of them as
political refugees.
Awww, why can't the FSP come to Vermont instead? We've got a smaller population, so 20,000 would be a larger percentage. Additionally, the Northeast Kingdom would love them. Oh, and we're still bitter about all the socialists moving in and taking over.
Please come out to Reason's smashing new DC
offices
Once again, it's odd how Reason talks small government but when the
rubber hits the road they prefer the benefits of being in the mean,
oppressive, liberal city.
I can't see, beyond any strech of the imaginatin, the FSP
working. I doubt that the number of people who are willing to pick
up their life, abandoning current jobs, friends, and family, and
move away to a completely new state just for political purposes is
large enough to make any political diffrence.
It's a lot of effort for something that wouldn't make that
much of a diffrence. ("Woo-hoo! We're a liberterian state now! Now
nobody is telling me not to wear my fucking seatbelt.")
Once again, it's odd how Reason talks small government but
when the rubber hits the road they prefer the benefits of being in
the mean, oppressive, liberal city.
Yeah, proximity to the ploltical hub of the country has nothing to
do with it!
We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant
folks
Some libertarian state; they've already started issuing
requirements.
Some libertarian state; they've already started issuing
requirements.
So if you orginized a mass migration to a state you WOULDN'T put
requirements in place in order to prevent black people from
coming?
If you want to see with your own eyes what New Hampshire is like and what the FSP is doing, one of the best times to do it is the FSP's annual Porcupine Freedom Festival (www.PorcFest.com).
They picked the wrong state. It's too late for NH. If it wasn't for my wife, I would've never moved back and be stuck watching it slowly calcify into the next great bastion of statism.
Lunchstealer says, "...but the idea of creating a voting
majority, or even a significant voting block that would affect
state politics, seems like it would at least on some level be
telling New Hampshirioles how to organize their government, even if
you'd actually not be telling them what to do."
And yet, the ability of people to move to places where the
government WAS organized according to their liking, or where they
COULD reorganize it to their liking, is central to our federal
system. The states are the laboratories of democracy, are they not?
If one state raises its taxes or increases its level of regulation,
its citizens are able to vote with their feet. Similarly, if people
live in a state that doesn't offer enough protection or social
services to suit them, they can move to states that do.
The only difference in the case of the FSP seems to be that the
migration is organized and purposeful: a peaceful invasion, in
fact. And yet, other organized and purposeful migrations occur when
big companies erect new offices or build new factories in various
regions. They often import many of the new facility's workers, and
those workers bring with them their incomes and often shared values
(inculcated through the hiring process and corpoorate culture),
too. This kind of thing can have as profound an effect on the local
culture as a "political" invasion might. But towns actively COURT
this kind of invasion, because they reason that some locals will
get good jobs, and the participation of all the well-paid
"transplants" will improve the local economy to benefit all.
So, given that NH residents do say they appreciate freedom, and
nearly everyone likes a good economy, why would the arrival of FSP
libertarians be of any more concern to the locals than the arrival
of a fortune 500 company factory or office complex? Not to say that
people DON'T have problems with such things, but I'm just wondering
why anyone might be less kindly disposed to consider the FSP in
comparison with corporate facility relocations, which happen all
the time.
I can't imagine the people of New Hampshire feeling too
comfortable with the idea of a bunch of libertarians coming in to
[not] tell them what to do.
Not much they can do about it, is there?
seems like it would at least on some level be telling New
Hampshirioles how to organize their government, even if you'd
actually not be telling them what to do.
This kind of assumes that the FSPers wouldn't be New Hamsters, when
actually they would be, having moved there and all. So it would be
more like New Hamsters, old and new, deciding for themselves how to
organize their own damn government.
I'm an FSP member and I moved about two months ago.
Among other things so far, I've stood out in the rain and booed
John McCain; politely asked the IRS to go the hell away; and a few
other interesting things.
I also had a nice conversation with Varrin last week after the GOP
debate. I think if you love liberty, you'll like him.
I can't imagine the people of New Hampshire feeling too
comfortable with the idea of a bunch of libertarians coming in to
[not] tell them what to do.
I have not conducted any scientific survey, but I can share my own
personal experience.
I moved to NH a few years ago as part of the Free State Project.
One of the first interactions I had with my new neighbors was while
I was shoveling the snow off my driveway. My neighbor's truck
pulled up to the driveway, and the window rolled down. My new
neighbor stuck his head out the window and yelled, "Are you one of
those Free-Staters?"
Not knowing what to say, I simply walked over to the truck and
said, "yes"
His answer?
"Well about god-damn time! We need you folks up here... how
many of you are there, again?"
No offense, but if Florida had been selected, we'd already be libertarian. Sure, it's a big state, but 35% of us will be dead in a few years, anyway, and Florida is a nice place. With beaches, hot women (not that I notice that anymore, being recently wedded), no income tax, and other forms of indigenous entertainment.
> The Free State Project is an effort to recruit > 20,000
liberty-loving people to move to New
> Hampshire.
Funny. A one-time shot of 20,000 people (maybe...) vs. 20,000+
every year who come here from other places (especially Mass.) and
are determined that their new home be reasonable -- i.e. nothing
like what NH once was and nothing like what the FSPers think it
should be. The FSPers are seriously out-numbered, and NH is turning
more and more blue ever year. Just look at recent elections. This
is a good thing. The FSPers made a seriously bad choice.
Jeff Q.
Tilton, NH
No offense, but if Florida had been selected, we'd already
be libertarian. Sure, it's a big state, but 35% of us will be dead
in a few years, anyway, and Florida is a nice place. With beaches,
hot women (not that I notice that anymore, being recently wedded),
no income tax, and other forms of indigenous
entertainment.
I'll kill your argument using just four words...are you ready? Here
it comes...The Pig Sty Amendment
To be fair, in 2006 we voted in that admendment to stop people from turning our consitution into a direct democracy.
Jeff Q (If that is your real first name and last initial),
Feeling threatened?
Yes, we've had some doozies. But there's a constitutional review coming up, where we can mess with the constitution. Too bad the libertarians missed that opportunity. Alas.
joe,
To be sure it isn't only the Massholes, there are plenty (about
20%, not that it would be considered unusual or investigated,
unless it were the other way) of knee jerk reactionaries who
checked the "all blue" column without concern for reality. Now the
blues are pulling the national red stunt in thinking it was a
"mandate" with their few point swing and I hope they get their
asses handed to them next time around. My only fear is the young
and reckless at UNH and Dartmouth will win the day again. What do
they care, they won't be here in a few years and they don't have to
live with the consequences of their actions.
Until then, we get to deal with legislation banning trans fat and
worry about interesterified fats instead and back to political
favoritism of ccw permits.
I'll address a few of the many fallacies above:
"I can't imagine the people of New Hampshire feeling too
comfortable with the idea of a bunch of libertarians coming in to
tell them what to do."
This is actually three fallacies in one sentence, quite an
accomplishment. First, if the FSP just meets its target of 20K, it
will amount to no more than 5% of the voting population. While that
will be a significant block, we will have to rely on *persuasion*
(you can forget about any notions of secession). Second,
libertarians believe in an objective standard of justice (e.g. The
Liberal Conception of Justice as formulated by Randy Barnett), and,
while we might debate the details, we agree on its broad outlines.
Third, libertarians realize that it is individuals who have
opinions, not groups, and we understand the meaning "tyranny of the
majority". In every state there are people who benefit from the
unjust status quo, but they do not have an inherent right to
continue. I am from California, and I resent its invasion by
socialists, but I am willing to trade its unmatched geography,
climate, and cultural opportunities for NH. Let any disaffected NH
socialists move to CA.
"20,000+ every year who come here from other places...The FSPers
are seriously out-numbered, and NH is turning more and more blue
ever year."
Amusingly, this is the opposite of the previous fallacy,
underestimating the FSP's potential influence instead of
exaggerating it. The population of all states is growing. We can
debate the nature of the NH immigrants, especially those from MA,
whether they are political or economic refugees, but let's assume
that the mix reflects NH's current population. In any event, they
are voter-sheep. The FSP strategy relies on moving in *activists*.
One activist is worth 100 sheep, though in the end the sheep get
their vote. Furthermore, FSP movers can concentrate in certain NH
communities, achieving even greater influence (or at least
comradery) there.
"Their Statement of Intent is so vague as to be nearly
meaningless."
So what is your proposed alternative, the NAP/ZAP? Too
restrictive--we need a lower common denominator. The FSP's SoI was
word-smithed at length to be easily understood and non-contentious.
We are interested in results, not debate. The FSP's motto is
"Liberty in Our Lifetime", which many other libertarian
organizations seem not to share.
"I doubt that the number of people who are willing to pick up their
life, abandoning current jobs, friends, and family, and move away
to a completely new state just for political purposes is large
enough to make any political diffrence."
Coming at this stage, after FSP early-movers have already made a
significant difference, including one getting elected to the NH
legislature, this statement is particularly silly. But from a
purely theoretical viewpoint, every passionate libertarian will
benefit by moving to a place where the libertarian concentration is
marginally higher, especially given an expectation that others will
continue to do the same, resulting in a snowball. The decision to
move will be based on a personal comparison of costs and benefits.
Americans are an extremely mobile lot. If someone will change
states (or even countries in my case) for a marginally better job,
why would he not move for other reasons, some of them with similar
economic impact?
"It's a lot of effort for something that wouldn't make that much of
a diffrence. ('Woo-hoo! We're a liberterian state now! Now nobody
is telling me not to wear my fucking seatbelt.')"
Despite continuing centralization of power in DC, much if not most
authority still remains at the state level. Sales tax, for example,
ranges from 0% in NH to over 7% in CA; state income tax in NH is
also 0%. Vice (prostitution, gambling) laws are set at the state
level, and the struggles for educational freedom, the right to bear
arms, and medical marijuana are occurring in various states. These
are core libertarian issues, not trivialities like seatbelt
laws.
FSP detractors are invited to suggest alternatives. ;)
Well spake Stephen. Getting ridiculed by outsiders is exasperating, but when self-professed libertarians do it, it's downright infuriating. Seems like the LP or the FSP or any other libertarian movement/project can only be a joke. No need to actually get involved and actually do something. I guess the fact that we haven't achieved all our goals yet, means that it must be futile to try. Screw the naysayers says I. If you're not fighting the good fight, whats the fricking point?
That anyone would call the FSP "a thought experiment"
demonstrates why it hasn't yet reached the goal of 20,000. It was
meant to replace the sitting around and talking part with the
political action part.
The "which state" debate was very entertaining, if a little too
divisive. An organized Free State Wyoming movement started
afterward, but I haven't heard much about it lately. An even less
organized group was pushing Montana.
It's too bad that WY didn't win -- 7,000 there would have been the
same percentage as 20,000 in NH, and could have kicked off the
official migration already. (Even some of the early organizers were
pushing WY as a backup plan, if the FSP didn't reach 20K by
2006.)
Still, NH is a decent choice, and I respect those who have already
made the move, and wish them luck. I would have been there myself
by now, if my wife hadn't vetoed the idea.
I am a native of New Hampshire and have been a member of the FSP
since 2002.
What is amazing to me is the degree to which the people of NH
accept the movement of FSP members here. Even the people who are
most certain they don't want us are willing to conceed they need
and want our members from time to time. :O) NH is a very
live-and-let-live state and that is very much in line with
libertarian principles.
As for the last election, NH didn't go blue, that election showed
that we have truely been purple for a long time. There are more
independent voters in NH than Rs or Ds. The Dems didn't win (and
haven't won) NH, the Rs (read: George Bush) lost it. The Ds need to
remember they can lose it again, and they will, if they flub up too
badly.
In an independent, freedom-loving state such as NH, the FSP doesn't
need many activists to swing the pendulum towards greater
freedom.
JM
Site 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