Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarians Aim to Take Over a 'Free State'
Star Tribune ^ | June 10, 2003 | Bob von Sternberg

Posted on 06/09/2003 10:41:16 PM PDT by wallcrawlr

The libertarians are coming -- maybe to one of the Dakotas, maybe to Montana or Wyoming, maybe even to New Hampshire or Vermont. Maybe. A plan is gaining traction among libertarians nationwide to target the most "freedom living" state with a small population, and start moving there en masse. If all goes as planned, as many as 20,000 of them would be living in that state by the end of the decade, their numbers large enough to start affecting public policy and potentially taking over the state legislature. "We're serious about this," said Jason Sorens, founder of the Free State Project. "It's looking very likely we'll get a lot of people to move. Whether we have political success may be less likely." Sorens, who has a newly minted doctorate in political science from Yale, said that the number of people who have signed on nationwide is approaching 4,000. Once that number gets to 5,000, the target state will be chosen. Once the 20,000 target is reached, the moving vans are supposed to start rolling. Ben Thompson, a handyman from New Ulm, has signed on. "In most states, the constitution and its principles have been turned on their head," he said. "So you end up with a gigantic, bloated government bureaucracy that gobbles up and wastes 50 percent of the taxpayers' money. The Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves." The only state he's keen on moving to is South Dakota "because I think the political atmosphere would give us a chance to do something. I don't know if this is going to work -- and if I was a betting man, I probably wouldn't bet on it." That's probably prudent, said Lisa Disch, a political scientist from the University of Minnesota who specializes in political third parties. "It seems pretty impractical to me," she said. "Normally you try to take over an existing party. How do you impose discipline on members if you don't know whether they agree with what the leadership wants to accomplish?" Placed in the context of the nation's third-party movements, the Free State Project "seems pretty unprecedented to me," she said. "This sounds truly odd. Almost utopian. Where would you find 20,000 people so committed to politics that they would stage such a takeover? Most people can't be bothered to go to the polls in their own neighborhood." Born in cyberspace The Free State Project is yet another movement born and nurtured almost exclusively in cyberspace. Sorens, 26, a libertarian since his days growing up in Houston, came up with the idea after the 2000 election, when Libertarian Party candidates were blown out nationwide. Careful to make clear that he was not formally affiliating with the party, he floated the idea in an online journal in the summer of 2001. His readers began signing up, and Sorens quickly put up the project's Web site, complete with a mascot: a porcupine. "I thought it was kind of cute, which symbolizes the idea of live and let live, that the government should back off. Porcupines are not aggressive, but you shouldn't mess with them." More specifically, the Free Staters want to see taxes slashed and government scaled back to the bone. Schools would be privatized. Drugs would be legalized. Gun control would be abolished. Federal aid would be spurned. "Government should not go beyond protecting people's rights," Sorens said. But Disch warned that, " 'Leave us alone' is not a viable political strategy. Libertarians want a limiting force, cutting back taxes and dismantling government. And it's simply impossible in this day and age to dismantle all networks of a state's responsibility. You're not going to get rid of the garbage collection." Although many press accounts call the Free Staters' plan a "takeover," Sorens said "that's just the easiest way to describe it. I'd prefer to call it a migration of freedom-loving people." As the number signing up has grown, his Web site has overflowed with data and analysis about the 10 states that are on the list because of their small populations; from smallest to biggest, they are Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Idaho, New Hampshire and Maine. All have fewer than 1.5 million residents, which would give the 20,000 Free Staters a potential critical mass in steering state politics. After allying with like-minded voters already living in the state, they would take aim at the state legislature. "We don't intend to go busting into a state and take over," said Tim Condon, a Tampa lawyer who is a member of the project's board of directors. "We'll probably be the sign-wavers, envelope stuffers and precinct walkers for people who are already there and feel the same way about political reforms that we do." Once the Free Staters have settled in, they probably will be most like members of a service club such as the Kiwanis, he said. Warm reception? Although the project has been embraced by the Libertarian Party in several of the target states, some residents are leery, calling the Free Staters members of the political fringe. Some of the media coverage the project has gotten has been downright derisive. "A lot of that condescension comes from people who are already alienated from our ideas," Sorens said. "I think most people in the state we pick are likely to welcome us." Added Condon: "The states under consideration are already more freedom-oriented than other states. . . . Every citizen of the free state will eventually thank heaven that their state was chosen." He's leaning toward picking New Hampshire. South Dakota Free Stater Crystal Bogue is pulling for her home state. "Nothing happens here," she said. "Nothing happens because people like to keep to themselves and take care of their own." For his part, Sorens won't say which state he favors "because I'm trying to stay neutral. There's a dichotomy in the group with a lot strongly western and a lot pro-eastern." At the rate new members are signing up, Sorens said the 5,000 threshold should be reached by October; that's when voting on which of the 10 states becomes the Free State will occur. Sorens hopes the 20,000 level is reached by 2005 but cautioned that that remains a long shot. "I'd say it's 50-50 we'll get to 20,000, but the odds seem to be constantly improving."

(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Free Republic; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: freestateproject; freestaters; fsp; liberarians; liberdopian; porcupines
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-160 next last

1 posted on 06/09/2003 10:41:16 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
My eyes!!!
2 posted on 06/09/2003 10:41:56 PM PDT by gcruse (Superstition is a mind in chains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
But this is the Clinton's aim.
3 posted on 06/09/2003 10:43:37 PM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Make that California, please?
4 posted on 06/09/2003 10:43:51 PM PDT by Tamzee ( It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. - J. Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
How about a few paragraphs now and then.
5 posted on 06/09/2003 10:44:22 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
Make that California, please?

A small state has just as many senators. The whole idea is to maximize the impact of a relatively small number of people. By taking over several small states, they could have a rather disproportionate impact on the US Senate and possibly the Electoral College.

6 posted on 06/09/2003 10:46:36 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
So Liberaltarians won't be the irrelevant 2% of the political population anymore, hehehe...???
7 posted on 06/09/2003 10:49:49 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
It won't work. As much as I sympathize with the FSP, it just won't work. Once the state is chosen and the takeover begins, the Feds will apply economic pressure to bring that state back in the fold. If that doesn't work, they'll use force to crush the FSP.
8 posted on 06/09/2003 10:50:37 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Paleo Conservative
Ahhh, I see.. a Vast LP Wing Conspiracy ;-)
10 posted on 06/09/2003 10:57:26 PM PDT by Tamzee ( It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. - J. Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: wallcrawlr
Once that number gets to 5,000, the target state will be chosen.

Uh oh...drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, and homosexual marriage for everyone. Sorry but the red states are smarter than that.

12 posted on 06/09/2003 10:58:27 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markcowboy
Couldn't you guys do the whole country a favor and straighten out Oregon?
13 posted on 06/09/2003 10:59:33 PM PDT by Tamzee ( It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. - J. Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Libertarians aim to take over a 'Free State'
Bob von Sternberg, Star Tribune

Published June 10, 2003
LIBE10

The libertarians are coming -- maybe to one of the Dakotas, maybe to Montana or Wyoming, maybe even to New Hampshire or Vermont. Maybe.

A plan is gaining traction among libertarians nationwide to target the most "freedom living" state with a small population, and start moving there en masse.

If all goes as planned, as many as 20,000 of them would be living in that state by the end of the decade, their numbers large enough to start affecting public policy and potentially taking over the state legislature.

"We're serious about this," said Jason Sorens, founder of the Free State Project. "It's looking very likely we'll get a lot of people to move. Whether we have political success may be less likely."

Sorens, who has a newly minted doctorate in political science from Yale, said that the number of people who have signed on nationwide is approaching 4,000. Once that number gets to 5,000, the target state will be chosen. Once the 20,000 target is reached, the moving vans are supposed to start rolling.

Ben Thompson, a handyman from New Ulm, has signed on. "In most states, the constitution and its principles have been turned on their head," he said. "So you end up with a gigantic, bloated government bureaucracy that gobbles up and wastes 50 percent of the taxpayers' money. The Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves."

The only state he's keen on moving to is South Dakota "because I think the political atmosphere would give us a chance to do something. I don't know if this is going to work -- and if I was a betting man, I probably wouldn't bet on it."

That's probably prudent, said Lisa Disch, a political scientist from the University of Minnesota who specializes in political third parties. "It seems pretty impractical to me," she said. "Normally you try to take over an existing party. How do you impose discipline on members if you don't know whether they agree with what the leadership wants to accomplish?"

Placed in the context of the nation's third-party movements, the Free State Project "seems pretty unprecedented to me," she said. "This sounds truly odd. Almost utopian. Where would you find 20,000 people so committed to politics that they would stage such a takeover? Most people can't be bothered to go to the polls in their own neighborhood."

Born in cyberspace

The Free State Project is yet another movement born and nurtured almost exclusively in cyberspace. Sorens, 26, a libertarian since his days growing up in Houston, came up with the idea after the 2000 election, when Libertarian Party candidates were blown out nationwide. Careful to make clear that he was not formally affiliating with the party, he floated the idea in an online journal in the summer of 2001.

His readers began signing up, and Sorens quickly put up the project's Web site, complete with a mascot: a porcupine. "I thought it was kind of cute, which symbolizes the idea of live and let live, that the government should back off. Porcupines are not aggressive, but you shouldn't mess with them."

More specifically, the Free Staters want to see taxes slashed and government scaled back to the bone. Schools would be privatized. Drugs would be legalized. Gun control would be abolished. Federal aid would be spurned.

"Government should not go beyond protecting people's rights," Sorens said.

But Disch warned that, " 'Leave us alone' is not a viable political strategy. Libertarians want a limiting force, cutting back taxes and dismantling government. And it's simply impossible in this day and age to dismantle all networks of a state's responsibility. You're not going to get rid of the garbage collection."

Although many press accounts call the Free Staters' plan a "takeover," Sorens said "that's just the easiest way to describe it. I'd prefer to call it a migration of freedom-loving people."

As the number signing up has grown, his Web site has overflowed with data and analysis about the 10 states that are on the list because of their small populations; from smallest to biggest, they are Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Idaho, New Hampshire and Maine.

All have fewer than 1.5 million residents, which would give the 20,000 Free Staters a potential critical mass in steering state politics. After allying with like-minded voters already living in the state, they would take aim at the state legislature.

"We don't intend to go busting into a state and take over," said Tim Condon, a Tampa lawyer who is a member of the project's board of directors. "We'll probably be the sign-wavers, envelope stuffers and precinct walkers for people who are already there and feel the same way about political reforms that we do."

Once the Free Staters have settled in, they probably will be most like members of a service club such as the Kiwanis, he said.

Warm reception?

Although the project has been embraced by the Libertarian Party in several of the target states, some residents are leery, calling the Free Staters members of the political fringe. Some of the media coverage the project has gotten has been downright derisive.

"A lot of that condescension comes from people who are already alienated from our ideas," Sorens said. "I think most people in the state we pick are likely to welcome us."

Added Condon: "The states under consideration are already more freedom-oriented than other states. . . . Every citizen of the free state will eventually thank heaven that their state was chosen."

He's leaning toward picking New Hampshire. South Dakota Free Stater Crystal Bogue is pulling for her home state. "Nothing happens here," she said. "Nothing happens because people like to keep to themselves and take care of their own."

For his part, Sorens won't say which state he favors "because I'm trying to stay neutral. There's a dichotomy in the group with a lot strongly western and a lot pro-eastern."

At the rate new members are signing up, Sorens said the 5,000 threshold should be reached by October; that's when voting on which of the 10 states becomes the Free State will occur. Sorens hopes the 20,000 level is reached by 2005 but cautioned that that remains a long shot. "I'd say it's 50-50 we'll get to 20,000, but the odds seem to be constantly improving."

Bob von Sternberg is at

>vonste@startribune.com
14 posted on 06/09/2003 11:02:08 PM PDT by pad 34 (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
If they are really serious they should pick New Hampshire because it has such a huge impact on the Presidential Primaries.

On pretty much the same note, my hubby and I for the longest time wanted to move to Vermont with the kiddies. That was until they were the first state to give civil unions to same-sex couples. We decided that was too much for the kiddies.

I hope the Libertarians succeed. Why? Because, in a few short years after their takeover they will learn that all of their socially liberal beliefs will negate their fiscal conservatism. They WILL PAY for the social ills after they take full affect. It will be a good "heads up" to any other person considering the SLIPPERY SLOPE. That or they could just go join them and leave the rest of the country alone.

On second thought do I really want them to pick New Hampshire? *~_^.
15 posted on 06/09/2003 11:02:17 PM PDT by kuma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
Ahhh, I see.. a Vast LP Wing Conspiracy ;-)

I read a similar article where Muslims were trying to organize the takeover of one of the less populous states for similar political reasons. The idea was to take over a small state elect Muslim senators and replace the state constitution with the Sharia.

16 posted on 06/09/2003 11:03:09 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
What is ironic is this is exactly how(though with less conspiring, I suppose) the leftists swamped the other Northeastern states, California, Florida and Washington.

They spread like a virus, and it's time we fought back. Unfortunately, you're right. No way the Feds don't do all they can to bring the serfs back under their thumb.
17 posted on 06/09/2003 11:03:15 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
I read a similar article where Muslims were trying to organize the takeover of one of the less populous states for similar political reasons. The idea was to take over a small state elect Muslim senators and replace the state constitution with the Sharia.

The Feds would crush that FASTER than the LP

18 posted on 06/09/2003 11:07:25 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
Make that California, please?

Hear-hear. It can't get any worse...and if it did, nobody would notice.

'Course, a Libertarian takeover of California is practically giving the land back to Mexico, but who the hell cares, right?

-Jay

19 posted on 06/09/2003 11:11:01 PM PDT by Jay D. Dyson (Liberty * Liberalism = Constant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jay D. Dyson
Please make an effort to learn something about Libertarians before speaking about them.

Thanks.

xdem
20 posted on 06/09/2003 11:14:06 PM PDT by xdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
The Feds would crush that FASTER than the LP

I don't know about that. Have you ever read how the Feds tried to impose their will on the Mormons in Utah?

21 posted on 06/09/2003 11:19:45 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xdem
Please make an effort to learn something about Libertarians before speaking about them.

So you deny that Libertarians have an overall "open border" policy?

-Jay

22 posted on 06/09/2003 11:23:51 PM PDT by Jay D. Dyson (Liberty * Liberalism = Constant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kuma
Liberaltarian sippery slope BUMP!
23 posted on 06/09/2003 11:27:23 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
They can rename that state ANARCHY LAND.
24 posted on 06/09/2003 11:28:40 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jay D. Dyson
So you deny that Libertarians have an overall "open border" policy?

Actually I think Liberaltarians do, the difference between Conservatives and Liberaltarians is with societal boundaries NOT federal boundaries. Am I wrong?

25 posted on 06/09/2003 11:33:13 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Sign me up for it.

GUNS!

AND SEX!

AND DRUGS!

AND ROCK 'N ROLL!

I fail to see a problem yet.
26 posted on 06/10/2003 1:41:55 AM PDT by TheAngryClam (Nil igitur mors est ad nos neque pertinet hilum/quandoquidem natura animi mortalis habetur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
You're dead WRONG ! Libertarians are for open borders, amongst other things.

This pathetic " plan " has been in the works for years. Every month or so, some Libertarian loon writes the same article about this and it gets posted to FR.

27 posted on 06/10/2003 1:49:37 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Somebody needs to straighten out the LP on immigration. It needs to stop, at least for a generation.
28 posted on 06/10/2003 3:13:50 AM PDT by risk (Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,... nevermind!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jay D. Dyson
So you deny that Libertarians have an overall "open border" policy?

I would deny that Libertarians have taken over California!

29 posted on 06/10/2003 3:22:08 AM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jay D. Dyson
"So you deny that Libertarians have an overall "open border" policy? "

I can't deny that, it's true.

It's also pretty much the same in practice as the "amnesty every couple of years" which is the Republican policy. So what about it?

30 posted on 06/10/2003 4:34:52 AM PDT by Uncle Fud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I hit excerpt and this is what happened.

whacha gonna do??
31 posted on 06/10/2003 4:49:52 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pad 34
See #31
32 posted on 06/10/2003 4:50:23 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Fud
It's also pretty much the same in practice as the "amnesty every couple of years" which is the Republican policy. So what about it?

When was the last amnesty?

33 posted on 06/10/2003 4:53:03 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
{They spread like a virus}

Once liberals are done making a state a sewer, they move to other states to repeat the process. Just look at the migration of New Yorkers to Florida and Californians to Arizona as examples.
34 posted on 06/10/2003 4:58:27 AM PDT by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: risk
I'm working on it.

The foundation rests on their (our?) inability to distinguish between immigrants desiring work and a disguised invading army.

With the end of Welfare State policies or a severe cut in their payouts, immigrants seeking to live off the government teat should be frightened away.
35 posted on 06/10/2003 5:01:24 AM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pad 34
Vermont won't work (I live there, so I know). The imported flatlander lefties would fight it tooth and nail, and the native Vermonters, who in many cases actually agree with the Libertarian position, would fight it on principle just because their state is being "invaded".

It already got invaded during the '70s by the hippies, and the natives are still none too happy about it. I think if they could they'd chuck all the imports out of the state and close the borders.


LQ
36 posted on 06/10/2003 5:10:15 AM PDT by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom
With the end of Welfare State policies or a severe cut in their payouts, immigrants seeking to live off the government teat should be frightened away.

This is where we continue to diverge on that topic. Immigrants want a shot at being contenders. All of them. Some of that contention is for welfare; some of it is for competition; some of it is just because we have a decent place to live and they don't.

I'm sorry, but we need to provide for our own people today. We don't have time to sort out who will become a good American, a patriot who would lay down his life for this land, and those who would just come here because it's "nice." Hell yes, it's nice. Far nicer than anywhere else, I can tell you. Abolishing welfare will eliminate exactly 5% of the motivation for people to come. And potential enemies, including people who want to build Aztlan, or secede with the People's Republic of Kalifornia, or build their own New Yorkistan are indistinguishable.

Immigration: give it a rest. A long rest. There are several other beefs I have with the Libertarian party, but I won't go into it now.

37 posted on 06/10/2003 5:17:02 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: risk
You can't care for people, even good people, by using the government as a 3rd party provider.

It fails to be anything but the worst sort of socialist program. Otherwise, I'm in full agreement about caring for our own people.

However, the Libertarian Party's official stance cannot distinguish a real immigrant from a covert invasion by real soldiers, let alone irregular special forces. I can't see cutting off immigration entirely because as of right now many our own young people have been indocrinated into a failed system of belief that will kill our economy.

38 posted on 06/10/2003 6:31:47 AM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom
By "care" I didn't mean more socialism. We have more than enough of that. I would like to prevent Spanish from becoming our national language. I would like to make sure that Americans have jobs. I would like to have a way to determine immigrants aren't communist or Islamic agents before we let any more in. I would like to be sure that we have enough room in our country for ourselves. I would like to keep the pollution down. I want to hold onto the open spaces we have, or at least allow them to be settled by people who currently call themselves legal immigrants.

I want America for Americans -- those people who are Americans today. A few can come in, from our true Allies. Nations who have provided us troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have given unwavering support for our geopolitical goals.
Even then, the bar should be raised considerably. Why not require a college degree? How about an advanced degree? How about requiring solid, second-generation citizens to sponsor them? None of this "my mom is in Timbuktu, so I'd like to
bring her over."
39 posted on 06/10/2003 6:40:18 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jay D. Dyson
So you deny that Libertarians have an overall "open border" policy?

Not at all.

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.html

The point is that illegal immigration is driven by large welfare payments. Were the welfare payments ended, there would be less immgration of people coming here only for handouts. People immigrating to the U.S. to work are far less a problem.

This is more realistic than our present immigration policy of mostly allowing in people who'll vote Democrat.

In other areas, the Libertarians are less realistic. I strongly disagree with the Libertarians' position on defense and foreign intervention. Even if we withdrew from the world, many would still hate and attack us.

40 posted on 06/10/2003 7:38:06 AM PDT by xdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
And it's simply impossible in this day and age to dismantle all networks of a state's responsibility. You're not going to get rid of the garbage collection.

Actually, garbage collection is Very easy to privatize. It's private in most towns, maybe not in cities, but there's no reason a company can't collect trash for payment.

41 posted on 06/10/2003 7:44:02 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (I barbeque with Sweet Baby Ray's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
If that doesn't work, they'll use force to crush the FSP.

Well, at least it will be clear then as to where liberty stands, or doesn't.

It would mean time to go 'Jeffersonian' on them.

42 posted on 06/10/2003 7:48:32 AM PDT by StriperSniper (Frogs are for gigging)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen; .30Carbine
Vermont won't work (I live there, so I know). The imported flatlander lefties would fight it tooth and nail, and the native Vermonters, who in many cases actually agree with the Libertarian position, would fight it on principle just because their state is being "invaded".

I agree. I am a native Coloradan now living in VT for a little over a year. The "I'm a Vemontah, I do what I wanta" principle of individuality would have them cut off their noses to spite their face.

On the other hand, if the FSP understood this dynamic and came in as good neighbors, not too heavy handed, they might gain some real traction. Old time Vermonters have just about had all they can stomach of liberal flatlander policies. This state is an economic basketcase ready to implode. If the FSP could turn VT around, right in the heart of New England la la land, it would be hard for the nation to ignore. Liberalism exposed for the total failure it is.

43 posted on 06/10/2003 9:33:26 AM PDT by TigersEye ( Joe McCarthy was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Don't forget open borders and fre trade.
44 posted on 06/10/2003 10:14:04 AM PDT by upcountryhorseman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
So you deny that Libertarians have an overall "open border" policy?

I would deny that Libertarians have taken over California!

Heh. I think the mention of Libertarians with respect to California was more a request that they take over (under the auspices of the FSP), rather than an observation that they were already in control.

One look around this "Golden State" and one can see the damage of the Dems everywhere...up to and including the energy "crisis," the highest sales tax in the nation, the coddling of "undocumented workers" (AKA - illegal immigrants), the most virulent anti-business regulations and legislation, and the most unAmerican anti-Second Amendment tripe around.

Curiously enough, I do think that the Libertarians would do a better job of running things at the start...but ultimately the state would simply self-destruct faster than it is at the present time.

-Jay

45 posted on 06/10/2003 11:18:18 AM PDT by Jay D. Dyson (Liberty * Liberalism = Constant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Actually I think Liberaltarians do, the difference between Conservatives and Liberaltarians is with societal boundaries NOT federal boundaries. Am I wrong?

Hard to say for sure. Judging from some of the things I've read by various Libertarian scribes, I don't know that there is even a consistent view of this issue among the Libertarian rank and file.

-Jay

46 posted on 06/10/2003 11:20:39 AM PDT by Jay D. Dyson (Liberty * Liberalism = Constant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
I read a similar article where Muslims were trying to organize the takeover of one of the less populous states for similar political reasons. The idea was to take over a small state elect Muslim senators and replace the state constitution with the Sharia.

The Feds would crush that FASTER than the LP

Lol, no quicker way imaginable to mobilize the 20 million deer rifle army! ;P

47 posted on 06/10/2003 11:27:45 AM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Fud
"So you deny that Libertarians have an overall "open border" policy? "

I can't deny that, it's true.

It's also pretty much the same in practice as the "amnesty every couple of years" which is the Republican policy. So what about it?

I don't recall the amnesty practice being Republican in nature. Indeed, in California the phenomenon appears to occur every 7 to 8 years and seems to be the exclusive domain of the Democrats (no doubt to increase their voting base).

All that said, I don't think the two (amnesty vs. open borders) are the same in practice or outcome. The former is like a roof with a thousand small holes in a rainstorm. The latter is like having one huge gaping hole in a roof in a rainstorm...and being told that it's an improvement since there are fewer holes.

-Jay

48 posted on 06/10/2003 11:28:54 AM PDT by Jay D. Dyson (Liberty * Liberalism = Constant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
How about a few paragraphs now and then.

Paragraphs are a needless government intrusion onto an individual's right to post unreadable stuff. Only statists and looters insist on paragraphs.

49 posted on 06/10/2003 11:30:42 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jay D. Dyson
If that's true, it's just one more thing I hate about Liberaltarianism.
50 posted on 06/10/2003 11:30:52 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-160 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson