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.
it would be so much easier to take over Aroostook. Let’s start in Mars Hill.
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.