Free State Project Not at All Anarchist
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
U.S. National - AP
Group Weighs Move to Libertarian Utopia
By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS, Associated Press Writer
COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho - Limited-government advocates have
their eyes on Idaho. Or Montana. Or New Hampshire.
All are among 10 lightly populated states known for
small-government politics that could end up being a
Libertarian utopia.
A movement called the Free State Project has registered some
3,100 people who would help choose a "candidate" state and
move there in hopes of canceling laws against drugs,
prostitution, guns and other individual liberties, while
privatizing current state functions such as schools.
"Rather than change the whole nation it makes sense for all
of us to gather in one place," said Elizabeth McKinstry, 33,
of Hillsdale, Mich., the project's vice president.
The project identifies 10 candidate states — Idaho, Montana,
Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Hampshire,
Maine, Delaware and Vermont. All have current populations
below 1.5 million.
The project is the idea of Jason Sorens, 26, a doctoral
candidate in political science at Yale University. After the
2000 elections, he said, he felt Libertarians needed a new
way to promote their cause.
When the number of registered Free State supporters reaches
5,000, likely by the end of the year, they will vote on
which state to target. Then supporters will have five years
to move, with a goal of 20,000 Free Staters living there.
Sorens said he believes 20,000 committed activists in a
state of less than 1.5 million is enough to sway the minds
of residents. That is necessary, he said, because "we're not
going to be a large enough group to take over."
McKinstry said the group was "mostly anti-regulation."
"We are not an anarchist group at all," she said.
Which state is a favorite? Project officials say a major
downside for Idaho is its Mormon population, which isn't
likely to support legalizing prostitution and drugs or drop
taxes on booze and tobacco.
Montana? A small economy.
Wyoming? Maybe too rugged.
Ben Irvin of Pocatello, Idaho, who calls himself the
project's lead promoter for the Western states, also figures
North Dakota won't win because "no one wants to go out
there."
Mark Snider, spokesman for Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, said
he was sorry to learn that Idaho was on the list. He warned
the Free Staters not to confuse Idahoans' love for small
government with a desire for nearly no government.
"The majority of Idahoans want safe streets, and not to be
under the threat of drunk drivers, drug addicts or
criminals," Snider said.
Chuck Butler, a spokesman for Montana Gov. Judy Martz, said
Montana is a huge state that welcomes newcomers. But he
encouraged the Free Staters to take a closer look at Idaho.
"Idaho is more inviting," Butler said.
Project: http://FreeStateProject.org
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Dave Gower
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> quoted
> Sorens said he believes 20,000 committed activists in a
> state of less than 1.5 million is enough to sway the minds
> of residents. That is necessary, he said, because "we're not
> going to be a large enough group to take over."
Assumption behind this statement: we are so much more (wise, smart,
informed - you choose the word) that 20,000 of "us" can dominate 1.5 million
of "them". No elitism here.
Terry DeLien
"Dave Gower" <davegow...@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:XY2dnftUDrB...@magma.ca...
That is not elitist. Activists DO STUFF to PROMOTE their AGENDAS. 1.5
million of "them" aren't necessarily activists. (and if they are average
americans then they are not even voters.)
It seems to me that 20,000 organised activists stand a good chance of
changing a whole state... especially if they study the voting district maps
and move in accordingly. It's not elitism as much as an accurate estimate
of the laziness and apathy of their fellow citizens.
Of course where it all falls apart is when local elected officials create
platforms of opposition casting the libertarian movement as a "Willie
Horton" figure to further their own ends.
T.D.
"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are" - Marillion
Dave Gower
"Terry DeLien" <bookr...@earthlink.net> wrote
>Activists DO STUFF to PROMOTE their AGENDAS.
Yeah we've noticed.
Michael A. Clem
Dan Clore wrote:
> Mark Snider, spokesman for Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, said
> he was sorry to learn that Idaho was on the list. He warned
> the Free Staters not to confuse Idahoans' love for small
> government with a desire for nearly no government.
>
> "The majority of Idahoans want safe streets, and not to be
> under the threat of drunk drivers, drug addicts or
> criminals," Snider said.
>
This is a major concern. If the group runs into serious opposition,
then they will be creating ill-will that will make it harder to
accomplish anything.
Dan Clore
I would think that would depend on how they react to the
opposition. If they're at least polite, and try to make
reasoned arguments to promote their views, they might get
somewhere. On the other hand, if they act like so many on
Usenet do, accusing everyone who disagrees with them about
anything of being monstrous Stalinist wannabe Pol Pots etc
etc etc, they'll just alienate the people they want to
convert.
Joseph K.
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>News for Anarchists & Activists:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
>U.S. National - AP
>Group Weighs Move to Libertarian Utopia
>By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS, Associated Press Writer
>
>COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho - Limited-government advocates have
>their eyes on Idaho. Or Montana. Or New Hampshire.
>
>All are among 10 lightly populated states known for
>small-government politics that could end up being a
>Libertarian utopia.
>
>A movement called the Free State Project has registered some
>3,100 people who would help choose a "candidate" state and
>move there in hopes of canceling laws against drugs,
>prostitution, guns and other individual liberties, while
>privatizing current state functions such as schools.
>
>"Rather than change the whole nation it makes sense for all
>of us to gather in one place," said Elizabeth McKinstry, 33,
>of Hillsdale, Mich., the project's vice president.
It's a very interesting project. I think i'd join.
>The project identifies 10 candidate states — Idaho, Montana,
>Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Hampshire,
>Maine, Delaware and Vermont. All have current populations
>below 1.5 million.
>
>The project is the idea of Jason Sorens, 26, a doctoral
>candidate in political science at Yale University. After the
>2000 elections, he said, he felt Libertarians needed a new
>way to promote their cause.
>
>When the number of registered Free State supporters reaches
>5,000, likely by the end of the year, they will vote on
>which state to target. Then supporters will have five years
>to move, with a goal of 20,000 Free Staters living there.
>
>Sorens said he believes 20,000 committed activists in a
>state of less than 1.5 million is enough to sway the minds
>of residents. That is necessary, he said, because "we're not
>going to be a large enough group to take over."
>
>McKinstry said the group was "mostly anti-regulation."
>
>"We are not an anarchist group at all," she said.
>
>Which state is a favorite? Project officials say a major
>downside for Idaho is its Mormon population, which isn't
>likely to support legalizing prostitution and drugs or drop
>taxes on booze and tobacco.
>
>Montana? A small economy.
This could actually be an advantage.
>Wyoming? Maybe too rugged.
>
>Ben Irvin of Pocatello, Idaho, who calls himself the
>project's lead promoter for the Western states, also figures
>North Dakota won't win because "no one wants to go out
>there."
>
>Mark Snider, spokesman for Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, said
>he was sorry to learn that Idaho was on the list. He warned
>the Free Staters not to confuse Idahoans' love for small
>government with a desire for nearly no government.
>
>"The majority of Idahoans want safe streets, and not to be
>under the threat of drunk drivers, drug addicts or
>criminals," Snider said.
I agree this is the major concern. When i talk to people about
reducing or cancelling the State they invariably bring up the subject
of uncontrolled crime. Project people have to put up their best faces
for PR work, the most decent-looking family-people available.
>Chuck Butler, a spokesman for Montana Gov. Judy Martz, said
>Montana is a huge state that welcomes newcomers. But he
>encouraged the Free Staters to take a closer look at Idaho.
>
>"Idaho is more inviting," Butler said.
Butler has some sense of humour.
>Project: http://FreeStateProject.org
Thanks for this info.
Joseph K.
G*rd*n
> >he was sorry to learn that Idaho was on the list. He warned
> >the Free Staters not to confuse Idahoans' love for small
> >government with a desire for nearly no government.
> >
> >"The majority of Idahoans want safe streets, and not to be
> >under the threat of drunk drivers, drug addicts or
> >criminals," Snider said.
Joseph K. <ni...@none.com>:
> I agree this is the major concern. When i talk to people about
> reducing or cancelling the State they invariably bring up the subject
> of uncontrolled crime. Project people have to put up their best faces
> for PR work, the most decent-looking family-people available.
Besides, they can take a gradualist approach. Many
government activities, like the Drug War, are as far as I
can see actually detrimental toward achieving the ends they
are supposed to seek. One can eliminate a lot of the Drug
War on the theory that one is reducing crime and harm to
persons in general.
Libertarians have often claimed that Welfare could be adequately
handled through private contribution. In a small, mostly
rural state, where the Welfare agency would not be paying
big-city rents, that idea might work as well, although in
this case I haven't checked the figures.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Joshua Holmes
<snip>
: Libertarians have often claimed that Welfare could be adequately
: handled through private contribution. In a small, mostly
: rural state, where the Welfare agency would not be paying
: big-city rents, that idea might work as well, although in
: this case I haven't checked the figures.
I think most libertarians don't think a welfare "agency" is really
all that necessary. Before the state got into the business of welfare,
most welfare was handled through existing institutions of family, church,
neighborhood, etc. Agencies popped up because that's simply how the state
does anything - massive bureaucracy.
And I think the FSP has a few more anarchists in it than anyone
admits. ;)
--
Joshua Holmes
jdho...@force.stwing.upenn.edu
He who conquers others is powerful
He who conquers himself is omnipotent.
- Lao-Tze
Shrikeback
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:3EADF9B0...@columbia-center.org...
> "Michael A. Clem" wrote:
> > Dan Clore wrote:
>
> > > Mark Snider, spokesman for Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, said
> > > he was sorry to learn that Idaho was on the list. He warned
> > > the Free Staters not to confuse Idahoans' love for small
> > > government with a desire for nearly no government.
> > >
> > > "The majority of Idahoans want safe streets, and not to be
> > > under the threat of drunk drivers, drug addicts or
> > > criminals," Snider said.
> > >
> > This is a major concern. If the group runs into serious opposition,
> > then they will be creating ill-will that will make it harder to
> > accomplish anything.
>
> I would think that would depend on how they react to the
> opposition. If they're at least polite, and try to make
> reasoned arguments to promote their views, they might get
> somewhere. On the other hand, if they act like so many on
> Usenet do, accusing everyone who disagrees with them about
> anything of being monstrous Stalinist wannabe Pol Pots etc
> etc etc, they'll just alienate the people they want to
> convert.
Although, in Idaho, I would expect the accusations and
name calling to be along the lines of calling them fascists
and Nazis.
Kevin Robinson
> I think most libertarians don't think a welfare "agency" is really
> all that necessary. Before the state got into the business of welfare,
> most welfare was handled through existing institutions of family, church,
> neighborhood, etc. Agencies popped up because that's simply how the state
> does anything - massive bureaucracy.
> And I think the FSP has a few more anarchists in it than anyone
> admits. ;)
I am intrigued by the FSP also. How it is implemented is IMPORTANT.
Remember how a group connected to a guru tried to "take over" a town
on the West Coast, Antelope, OR?
http://www.empirenet.net/imageworks/Raj1.htm
Compare that to Vedic City, IA, built "from scratch."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/17/national/17IOWA.html?ex=1052020800&en=7f261671e74f4dc6&ei=5070
I would follow these precepts:
1.) Move to an area where the immigrants are a "cultural
match." Bringing a large number of single, male bohemians
to a small town full of families might be a problem. If the
local population sees the immigrants as substantially like
them in important respects, acceptance might be easier.
This isn't to say that a black libertarian SHOULDN'T move
to rural Idaho if he wants to, but he might have a better time
of it if he likes to hunt and fish.
2.) Don't overburden the infrastructure. I've lived in big
cities and small towns, and what rural or ex-urban voters often
fear about population growth is higher taxes. Now, while we
libertarians have no desire to increase our new neighbors' taxes,
the current taxpayers of the area we would move to might fear
having to expand capacity at the local public schools, upgrading
"city water" and sewage treatment, police, fire and emegency
services, etc. Conversely, an influx of the childless, especially
if they are older, reminds me of development fights in the Sunbelt,
where young parents resented the Seniors living in Leisure Village
who aways voted against school bond issues, but placed demands on
public services such as EMT's, or the local hospitals. This demands
3.) A libertarian response. Assuming migrants can bring the capital,
new private schools for those not home-schooled should relieve fears
that the school district will metastasize. If the area has volunteer
fire/EMT/Ambulance service, the newcomers should be enthusiastic in
raising non-tax funds for any necessary expansion. Pitching in to
support such an important community institution will help dispel any
bad image of FSPers as "outa-state weirdos." Any other voluntary
organizations that could welcome new members should be supported.
Convince the locals by your deeds that you are a regular guy or gal
who will help out his neighbor so that your home town will be a
better community. If I were religious, I'd find a church to join.
4.) Improve the local economy. If business owners move to the area,
new jobs for both the migrants and existing residents would be
a plus. Even if you can't hire somebody, using local merchants as
vendors will increase the local economy. Ideally, moving to an area
that needs more labor would help. I'm no expert on matching employers
and labor forces, so I don't have a candidate state.
If I were operating on pure wish fulfillment, I'd say that starting
a philosophically compatible college and college town, as the yogic
fliers have done in Iowa, makes great sense. If you ever read any of
the surveys of "Best Towns in America" college towns always fare the
best. They have cultural and employment opportunities that similarly-
sized rivals frequently don't have, and support a lot of "new economy"
knowledge-based jobs.
5.) Be polite. If someone whose family has lived in the county since
before the state was admitted to the union questions your right to
participate in local politics, smile and take it. Go right on trying
to set a libertarian example, and persuade those who will sit still to
listen to freedom-oriented ideas, but don't develop a reputation as a
freakish intellectualoid interloper.
6.) If you like having kids, have as many as you can afford. In a few
generations we'll outnumber them. When our grandkids are intermarried
with Jebediah Springfield's great-great-great-grandkids, nobody
will care anymore. A long-term appproach, but it traditionally works.
Kevin
Joseph K.
Checking the figures would be a nice project: it is the estimation of
the difference between the average amount people is willing to pay
voluntarily for (1) times the amount of contributing people and the
amount needed to sustain a potentially unknown quantity of unlucky
people which a subset of the potentially contributing population.
Joseph K.
(1) the service of precluding miserable people to appear within a
person's field of view and related services (2).
(2) the service of precluding miserable people to join and conspire to
take a person's property (3) among others.
(3) including the property of a person's own body, according to
libertarian traditions regarding the central importance of the concept
of 'property'.