Skip to comments.Libertarians and the Free State Project
Posted on 10/09/2005 3:00:11 PM PDT by ct235
LISTEN, Libertarian! By Tim Condon October 9, 2005
Libertarians are such losers. I know, this is not a way to endear myself to them, even when my best friends are all libertarian or near-libertarian. But success is staring them in the face, and a significant proportion of them deploy massive brainpower and argument to make sure that nothing ever gets better. It's incredible.
LISTEN, libertarian! It's over 30 years later, and we're still hearing endless platitudes that keep us from gaining political power in the service of individual freedom.
"All we need to do is a better job at selling our product!" the activists say. But we've been trying to "sell our product" for decades, and the people of America aren't buying.
"All we need to do is a better job of educating people about what we stand for!" say the activists. But after 30 years of libertarian presidential candidates and campaigns, the voters are more than aware of what we stand for.
We are caught blinded...blinded in the floodlights of an ugly reality: Today there is no significant voting constituency in America for libertarian ideas. And it's time to face up to that fact.
If we are really interested in living in a society where every man and woman can do whatever they want so long as they harm no one else, there is only one possibility for success. Our numbers must be concentrated in one sovereign American state, there to exercise the power that comes with voting power in a democracy.
There is simply no other way.
Such a "democratic experiment" would be no experiment at all. It would merely reference what the Founding Fathers intended the thirteen sovereign, revolutionary states to be. It would be a shining example to the rest of America and the world, demonstrating the salutary effects of people living in freedom. It would be a "little Hong Kong," and would instruct our country on what it has lost, just as Hong Kong instructed China on the benefits of free markets and property rights for the past half-century (as of January 2005 Hong Kong was rated by the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal as the freest country in the world economically; the United States isn't even in the top 10).
This is the meaning, and the aim, of the four-year-old Free State Project (FSP). It offers real hope for liberty in your own lifetime.
Yet in the face of the FSP opportunity, the great majority of libertarians remain immobilized, or worse. The Executive Committee of the national Libertarian Party has refused to endorse the Free State Project, even while many state parties have. Former LP Presidential candidate Harry Browne all but dismissed the Free State Project ("I have not been a big fan of the Free State Project...I have no wish to participate in such a program..."). Reason magazine ran an article that reprised all the failed "new country" projects of the past 40 years, making it clear they think the FSP is just another "pipe dream" And the CATO Institute won't even comment on the Free State Project.
As for the rest of you libertarians, you seem to regard the FSP plan with a mixture of fear and revulsion. Move to a small-population, cold-weather state to attain liberty in your lifetime? Suddenly we hear you bleating about how "things aren't so bad" where you live. And we hear emphatic statements that you're sure as hell not moving thousands, or even hundreds, of miles away from your comfortable home, just to live free. Uh uhhh!
After all, you live where you live because you like it there. It may be that you arrived at your present place and state of lassitude through an accident of birth or parentage. Or you may have visited at some point, and liked it enough to stay. Now it is where your friends are. It is where your job is. It is where your family is.
But most of all, it is where you are comfortable.
Of course, the question of "comfort" to those who profess to believe in libertarian ideas and ideals is problematical. When you say "things aren't that bad here," you sound both smug and hopeful, even as you delude yourself. You also sound oh-so-earnest when you explain that "I'm not prevented from doing most of the things I want to do. As long as I'm careful, and don't make myself too public, it's not that bad at all."
You pause to let that fortuitous bit of information sink in, and then continue: "Besides, I'm not really interested in smoking pot or setting up a whorehouse." As if such things meant anything in the parlance of what individual freedom is about. Texas Representative Ron Paul has stated that, "American history, a least in part, is a history of people who don't like being told what to do." Yet today, he points out, we have built a society that has "laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority."
Meanwhile, you libertarians fall all over yourselves explaining why you can't or won't move to a single state where you could fight being "told what to do." After all, it's not so bad to bend a little to accommodate your lives to the ever-increasing demands of local and state governments, right? You're quite comfortable where you are, and if you can't stem the increasing tendency of government to minutely supervise what you are permitted to do, well then, you just go along with it.
Let me ask you a few things.
What does it mean when a house of a few thousand square feet nice, but not palatial by any stretch of the imagination can be assessed and taxed so that the property tax bill amounts to one or two thousand dollars per month? It means those who own the homes aren't really the "owners"; they merely "rent" their homes from the local government, often while clamoring for more "government services."
But it's okay to you libertarians, because you don't live in a big, expensive house anyway, so you don't have to worry about sky-high property taxes. And you think paying two hundred dollars a month in property taxes is quite reasonable, especially when compared to the taxes paid by people with bigger houses. Except that even those levels of taxation applied to our homes are outrageous when you think about it.
In New Hampshire, by contrast, there are no state income taxes, no general state sales taxes, no estate taxes, no tangible personal property taxes, no intangible personal property taxes, no corporate income taxes, and no fat "political class" endlessly agitating for higher taxes and larger state government. Says one committed libertarian from another northeastern state, "When all state and local taxes are taken into consideration, along with other mandated expenses such as insurance, I'll save between $50,000 and $75,000 every year after I move to New Hampshire from New Jersey."
How about when whole cities, and even states, presume to tell business-owners whether they can or cannot allow smoking or drinking, for that matter in and on privately owned commercial property?
That's all right with you libertarians. You don't like smoking anyway, and you're perfectly willing to do your drinking at home. And when the property rights of others are violated to suppress behavior you don't favor, well then that's okay too.
In New Hampshire, by contrast, there are no statewide anti-smoking laws because the predominant cultural outlook is "live and let live." There are also no "open container" laws, and random police roadblocks are forbidden by law without a court order. Fittingly, the state motto is "Live Free or Die."
Here's another example: What does it mean when cities totally ignore the 2nd Amendment, routinely outlawing the right to keep and bear firearms by citizens living in those cities? The people must like the idea, since they keep electing the politicians who push it. And when murder and assault rates skyrocket in such places as they have in Washington DC since firearms have been virtually outlawed the people and politicians agitate for even harsher anti-gun ordinances!
But it must be okay with you libertarians, because you continue to live in such places. Perhaps you don't feel the need or desire to own or carry a firearm. And you figure you're safe enough in your neighborhood anyway, so you think such laws really don't affect you.
In New Hampshire, by contrast, the right to openly carry personal firearms is enshrined in the state constitution. It is also a "shall issue" jurisdiction where state law commands local authorities to issue concealed carry permits upon submission of an application. Not surprisingly, New Hampshire has one of the lowest crime rates in the country and is said to be one of the four safest states in America.
LISTEN, libertarian: Virtually every political and philosophical position you hold is well thought out, logical, and beneficial. Yet most of those political and philosophical positions are utterly rejected by the mass of Americans. They don't agree with you! Your ideas scare them! And your numbers are so pitifully small that after 30 years not one LP candidate for any statewide or federal office has ever been elected.
Why do you sit there so smug in the clarity and justice of your positions that will never be implemented? Nor ever be seriously considered or debated? You cannot win because in any democratic political calculus you are swamped by those who disagree with you and fear the ideas you espouse.
The only way for you to have any kind of hope for success is to take it upon yourselves to concentrate your numbers. It has been done in Utah, where the Mormons hold sway. It has been done in San Francisco and Key West, where gays hold sway. It has been done in New York and New Jersey, where predominantly corrupt state socialists hold sway. It has been done in Vermont, where a formerly rock-ribbed Republican state has been transformed into a highly-taxed political paradise for liberal statists, so much so that whole towns are now asking to secede and join neighboring low-tax New Hampshire.
New Hampshire. The chosen Free State. It is the only place where politically active freedom-lovers have a chance to wield real political power. Why? Because the state is already semi-libertarian in outlook, which is why the FSP membership chose it.
The chance is right in front of you, libertarians! Right now! The migration of freedom-loving people to New Hampshire has already begun. Several hundred people from all over America and the world have already moved to New Hampshire. You can read about them and their stories on the Free State Project web site at www.freestateproject.org. If you join the others already moving there in a steady stream, you won't have to put up with the common, petty annoyances forced upon you by increasingly officious apparatchiks of state and local government. You won't have to put up with the increasing numbers of "little Hitlers" in daily life whose mission it is to help make you "do as you are told" and "obey the rules." Rules that shouldn't exist in the first place.
But even that prospect doesn't entice most of you. For most of you the response has been continued lassitude. After all, you're comfortable where you are, and you're certainly not going to endure any disruption or discomfort in your life to make freedom happen. Not now, and not in the future.
In the 2004 national election, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik himself a signed participant with the Free State Project garnered almost 400,000 votes. Yet the Free State Project seeks only 20,000 activist libertarians and other freedom-lovers to make the move to freedom (they're currently at almost 7,000 signed-up participants: www.freestateproject.org/about/membership.php).
What would be the impact on politics in New Hampshire? "If you put just 5,000 politically active liberty-lovers into New Hampshire, let alone 20,000," one Granite State resident told me, "they could sweep the state; they'd be more politically powerful than anything either the Democrats or the Republicans could put up."
But you libertarians sit there in your highly-controlled, high-tax home states where property rights are routinely violated and local ordinances endlessly proliferate, and you refuse to take any action other than running futile election campaigns that never garner more than a few percent of the vote.
In the final analysis, you're doing little to attain liberty in your own lifetimes, even while you prate on about how much you believe in political activism, individual freedom, and the Bill of Rights.
Never before were Samuel Adams' words more apt than today with regard to the general libertarian response to the Free State Project. On August 1, 1776, less than a month after the Declaration of Independence had been signed and published, Adams said these words in a speech to a packed house: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Is it any wonder that the flame of freedom flickers and sputters in America today?
Not too bad. Now cut it to about half this length, and you'll have something a lot more people will read.
"Not surprisingly, New Hampshire has one of the lowest crime rates in the country and is said to be one of the four safest states in America"
I believe it also has the least minorities. Just a coincidence I guess.
Anyway, how's the job market in NH?
Legal drugs, open borders and Harry Browne.
(Browne after 9/11/2001 was disgusting. So don't expect much attention to anything he says, or every led)
What Joe (#2) said. Not a bad idea, on the whole, but it does look more and more like a pipe dream with each passing year.
And it is surrounded by socialist states. All of New England should be sundered from the Nation.
All of New England? Not New Hampshire. It's the "Live Free or Die" state, and is more libertarian-oriented than any other state in the nation. Check it out at freestateproject.org.
Or maybe you can catch more flies with honey then with vinegar.
Maybe the condescending tone in which such ideas are delivered just grates.
Texas Representative Ron Paul has stated that, "American history, a least in part, is a history of people who don't like being told what to do."
Now take that a step further.
I believe that you are thinking of Vermont.
I don't have much use for the Free Staters. They have rejected one of their own who is protesting the horrible Kelo decision (see 6th paragraph from the bottom of the article in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1496267/posts )
Don't waste your time. Despite the pollyanna attitudes of the Free Staters, I wouldn't recommend this area to anyone. $500 to $800 (or worse) to register a new car; astronomical property taxes; and housing costs three times the national average. Then there is the cost of heating...we just filled our tank for the first time this season, and almost dropped dead from sticker shock. It will get worse, much worse, in the coming years. My wife is from here, and she can't wait to get out. (Got wood stove? You'll need it.) NH is being overrun by liberals from all the surrounding states; The French are pouring in from socialist Quebec. (If you like the condenscending arrogance that drives Rush Limbaugh straight up a wall; you'll love it here.) Democrats have made tremendous inroads into the State Legislature. Did I mention the devastating floods in the Keene area this weekend? New Hampshire? No, thanks.
I just wondering when the libertarians will make their own website and get off our conservative website.
Maybe the fundamental failure of libertarianism is its foolish model of reality.
The libertarian believes there was some golden age of rugged individualism that we deviated from. There never was. There was an age in which social services were provided by large extended families so you had small governments. The problem, which libertarians refuse to see, is that you can only have large extended families in traditional, religious cultures. Not the secular individualistic cultures that libertarians want. A secular, individualistic culture will only have two child families and a two child family culture will look to the state for relief in confronting sickness and old age. In a two child family culture there aren't enough hands to do the 24-7 job of looking after Grandma.
To have a 1900 state you have to have a 1900 culture and society.
Couldn't agree more. I have remarked in the past that it would be best for America if we could attach a large (really BIG) tow chain to Cape Cod, and drag the whole mess out into the North Atlantic, where NE could be allowed to drift aimlessly, bringing no further harm to the rest of the country. The liberal cancer spreading into the South and West has its roots in the tumor that is New England. Conservatives still remaining in New England are living in a pollyannaverse of denial...the liberals OWN New England; lock, stock, and barrel.
Nope. In Vermont you can carry concealed without a license. In New Hampshire anyone can carry *openly*, but you must have a license to carry concealed.
Agent provocateur alert. Why don't you talk to the 400 or more Free Staters who have already moved to New Hampshire. They uniformly love it. If you don't believe it, go to the FSP website and read some of their stories. If *you* don't like it, certainly you're free to go...but I haven't talked to a single person who has moved to the Free State and regretted the move, and I've talked to dozens if not scores of them.
Geez...is that all you people up here do is throw labels around when somebody injects the 'other side' of the argument regarding your so-called 'libertarian' paradise? The 400 Free Staters love it here is because they are part of a cause...they are desperate for it to succeed, and are going to ignore the blemishes as a result. Simple as that. The statements I made are true. You know as well as I do that many of the locals are quite hostile to the FSP. (Reference Grafton, among others.) If people are willing to put up those flaws; G-d bless them. My wife is from here; I have lived in this area on and off for years; and we both believe the grass is greener elsewhere; especially for conservatives. Back to a warmer, friendlier, and LESS EXPENSIVE Tennessee; good luck with your 'project'.
Oh wow..I'm guessing you're a True Conservative©?
Libertarians should pool their money and go to the moon and live by themselves.
I am a conservative, who leans libertarian. I like the idea of the libertarians gathering in one place to have a strong voting bloc. Not to mention, this will help keep NH from being a blue state. (this chaps DU's ass as they blame the election on NH LOL). Keep it up free staters. I hope some real positive results come out of this.
Bump to freepatriot
Too late...NH went Kerry in 2004.
Ping! You might be interested in this thread . . .
Count me in. I am retiring to NH in 4 years. Actually 205 weeks and 4 days but who's counting. I will register there as a Libertarian
By 9,000 votes out of more than 600,000 cast. There were over 30,000 same-day registrations on voting day. A goodly percentage of them were fraudulent (investigations continue). In about 75 years, no governor has served only one two-year term and then been tossed out. It happened to GOP Gov. Benson. Now Democratic Gov. Lynch is in his first term. I've got five bucks that Lynch won't be re-elected in 2006, and a conservative/libertarian-leaning Republican will be voted in. Wanna take the bet?
Thanks man. You go on up and check it out. There are so many interconnected libertarians there now that when you arrive you've got a few hundred personal friends waiting for you!
Thanks for the offer, but I'm not a gambler. You might be right, but in just a few short months; it will be of no concern of me what happens to New Hampshire.
female ;) If I thought I could talk my husband into it, I'd be there in a second.
I understand. But it voted for Kerry in '04. Plus having a libertarian state in the middle of socialist New England is like establishing a Jewish nation next to Germany in 1939; insane.
bump. good read.
Just thought you'd be interested in this thread and what your comments are, Mr Libertarian. :)
Many of the founders, like Jefferson were considered classical liberals. Not the libertarians fault that like the term "conservative" the word is meaningless in it's present context.
More of a strict constructionist myself, I see the libertarians(small l) as the only group that insists the government stay within it's Constitutional grant of powers. I've had all the socialism I can take, from the left and the right. Time for some new political parties, let what passes for political representation now go the way of the Whigs.
The owner of this forum has endorsed the Republican Liberty Caucus, the most effective small-l libertarian organization going today. Also, keep in mind that Ronald Reagan called libertarianism the "heart and soul of conservatism".
I live in NJ. I admire the FSP. But, I'm a homeschooler, and NH homeschool laws are much stricter than NJ's.
But I wish you all luck. I think you're taking the right course of action by concentrating in one state. I just wish you'd picked someplace warmer. :-) Maybe my family will join you one day. In the meantime, I'll be following the FSP story to see how it works out.
You want to take over a government, take over a government. Begin with a campaign of assassination of public officials, police, and political opponents. Stage an armed takeover of the capitol. Arrest the opposition and place them in camps. Close the border. Mass trials and executions. Anyone not believing in liberty, toleration, and human rights must be ruthlessly exterminated!
Or you could go for reason and building a political consensus. If you want. I guess.
Im truly conservative, which is libertarian. Forgive the @##$#@ out of me for thinking I should be free.