Free State Project - Liberty in Our Lifetime

Are you frustrated at the loss of freedom and responsibility in America, while the growth of government and taxes continues unabated? Do you want to live in strong communities where your rights are respected, and people exercise responsibility for themselves and in their dealings with each other?

If you answered "yes" to those questions, then the Free State Project has a solution for you.

What the Free State Project is... 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.

When you sign our Statement of Intent, you signal your commitment to move to the chosen free state, New Hampshire, within five years of obtaining 19,999 other people who commit to move. The more signatures we get, the more secure people can be in their decision to move, because they know that many other people will also be moving— enough to make a real difference! You don't have to wait until we have 20,000 signatures to move, of course, but that option is there to let you be more secure in your decision.

The original announcement for the FSP was in July of 2001. The original plan was to vote on a state when they had 5,000 members. That vote was finalized in September 2003. From ten of the least populous states they chose New Hampshire (over Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, Delaware, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota and South Dakota).

Many of us FSP members back then supported Wyoming because it had the least population AND it was the already the most "libertarian" of the lower 48. Alaska would have been the best choice if they could get 20,000 members to move there (but the urban crowd rebelled at that). A two state choice of Wyoming and Delaware was proposed to satisfy both rural/westerners and urban/easterners but the New Hampshire cheerleaders sunk that idea.

The deal from originator Jason Sorens, as reported by another original board member Debra Ricketts, was that if they did not have 20,000 "libertarian activists" signed up by October 1, 2006, the project would fold. Jason Sorens stated that if that happened they would fall back to Wyoming (the state with the least population). When they fell short, they changed that from a "deadline" to a "goal" and have since dropped any realistic date. Many of us who signed up early on considered the deal broken when the deadline was missed.

Many of us felt that 20,000 was too few for what they were trying to accomplish unless they were all "activists". They have since watered that goal down to just those who move and, hopefully, register to vote. They also changed the original deal of moving within 5 years of having 20,000 participants.

Many of us more conservative types also disagreed with many of the anarchist libertarians. They picked a state with a population as numerous as Wyoming and Delaware combined AND even now they have only met half their goal of 20,000 participants, and they don't require them to be "activists" None of them had any prior real world political experience, and that included Sorens who only had a PhD in political science and no experience in political office.

But they are still trying, I'll give them that.

The count is presently 10,726 signed up and 894 who've moved. The FSP for four years since March of 2007 has averaged a recruitment of 14.8 people per week with 2.1 per week moving to New Hampshire. Maybe by the year 2025 they could meet their watered down goals. But by then New Hampshire will be even more taken over by Democrats from Massachusetts and New York.

It is still a good idea.
They should have chosen Wyoming.
They could still choose Wyoming.
Or Alaska.

I personally feel New Hampshire was a bad choice precisely because it was surrounded by leftist States.
The more successful New Hampshire is the more people and business they will draw most likely from neighboring States.

That means a high % of Statist liberals coming for economic reasons but bring with them their leftist politics. It will be more difficult the more successful New Hampshire is.

Of course this is a problem with any state that moves toward liberty but perhaps none more then the relatively tiny state of New Hampshire surrounded by leftist States. Their most significance impact will be to force the other New England States to moderate more then they would otherwise.

I for one do not want New England to moderate, I want them to drive themselves into the ground. Them are Nasty people with a hasty post-revolution history of statism.

I for one do not want New England to moderate, I want them to drive themselves into the ground. Them are Nasty people with a hasty post-revolution history of statism.

Though I agree about New England in general, non-coastal New Hampshire outside north and west of the southeast corner, Vermont outside of the Burlington area, and Maine north and east of the southwest corner are much better. Yet even those areas would be very resistant to a bunch of libertarians trying to move in and take over.

Give the Free State Movement a few years to become frustrated or even downright angry with their choice of New Hampshire and the disenchanted may be willing to move to Wyoming or Alaska.

” “I for one do not want New England to moderate, I want them to drive themselves into the ground. Them are Nasty people with a hasty post-revolution history of statism.”

Give the Free State Movement a few years to become frustrated or even downright angry with their choice of New Hampshire and the disenchanted may be willing to move to Wyoming or Alaska.”

From a Historical point of view Wyoming and Alaska would make great hosts states, both of them have a history of libertarianism. Their very wide open geography makes having a large number of rules piratically difficult to enforce anyway and largely unnecessary even where such rules would be appropriate else where.

As far as I could tell New Hampshire’s only real advantages is:
1: The moto(easily changed in other States).

2: Access to the sea, just not limited by the effective tax other states impose upon trade thou them.(Alaska also has such access)

” “I for one do not want New England to moderate, I want them to drive themselves into the ground. Them are Nasty people with a hasty post-revolution history of statism.”

Give the Free State Movement a few years to become frustrated or even downright angry with their choice of New Hampshire and the disenchanted may be willing to move to Wyoming or Alaska.”

As far as I could tell New Hampshire’s only real advantages is:
1: The moto(easily changed in other States).

2: Access to the sea, just not limited by the effective tax other states impose upon trade thou them.(Alaska also has such access)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.