Looking for more freedom

the Rapid City Journal , Rapid City SD ^ | 06/18/03 | The Journal Editorial Board, Rapid City Journal

[archy]

Looking for more freedom

By The Journal Editorial Board

Wanted: One freedom-loving state where jobs are plentiful, taxes are low, government is small, laws are few and individual liberty is appreciated.

How: 20,000 people pledge to move to a single state where their numbers can affect elections and change local and state laws to reduce taxes, remove regulations and close government bureaucracies.

Where: A state with less than 1.5 million people and which spends less than $10 million in election campaigns - Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, or Wyoming.

When: As soon as 5,000 people sign up, an election will be held to choose the state where, hopefully, 20,000 liberty-seeking individuals and their families will move and, using legal, peaceful means, transform it into a libertarian utopia.

The Free State Project is the brainchild of Jason Sorens, a resident of Asheville, N.C., with a doctorate in political science from Yale University. It's not affiliated with the Libertarian Party, but its goals are similar to those espoused by most Libertarians: abolition of income taxes, elimination of regulatory bureaucracies, repeal of most gun control laws, repeal of most drug prohibition laws, free trade, decentralized government, and privatization of most services.

Sorens said the project is meant to put into practice the ideals of free markets and individual liberties and a government whose only function is to protect citizens' rights to life, liberty and property. There are many people in the United State who believe in the same ideals, Sorens said, but not in enough numbers to achieve political success. By getting 20,000 people to move to one area of the country, Sorens hopes that will translate into political success at the local and state level where Free Staters can effect change. The chosen Free State then will become a model to other states of the benefits of small government and maximum individual liberty.

The Free State Project has researched the candidate states and ranked them according to specific criteria (www.freestateproject.org). Of the 10 states, South Dakota ranked seventh, with neighboring states Wyoming first, North Dakota eighth, and Montana ninth. In the most important category, number of voters, Wyoming was first (meaning fewest voters) and South Dakota fifth. Dependence on government was the second-highest category, and Wyoming came in fourth (less federal dollars was good) and South Dakota seventh. In election spending, Wyoming was third (cheap elections are better), South Dakota ninth; and in job potential, South Dakota was fourth and Wyoming eighth. South Dakota scored higher among the 10 states in percentage of union teachers (fewer the better), state land planning (none), Small Business Survivability Index, and violent crime rate; it scored lower in coastline (none), foreign border (none), federal land (more federal land equaling more resentment of government), and marijuana (illegal).

As of June 12, 4,087 people had signed up for the Free State Project; Sorens predicted a vote to choose the project's state in September or October and a move to the chosen state by 20,000 Free Staters possibly by 2005, although he calls pulling off the whole idea a 50-50 probability.

Bob Newland of Hermosa is one of the pledge signers. Newland, the South Dakota Libertarian Party's 2002 candidate for attorney general, said he'd prefer that South Dakota becomes the chosen state, because "I wouldn't have to move." He said more people are objecting to government expanding into their lives, but that the Free State Project will be difficult to carry out. "Many people have beefs against specific government actions, but they're fragmented by government pandering to them on other issues," he said.

In theory, the Free State Project is intriguing. In practice, could it succeed? Even in a small state such as South Dakota, 20,000 new voters is only 5.9 percent of the 340,407 ballots cast in the 2002 election.

The biggest hurdle to the Free State Project is the belief by most Americans that they already are free from government meddling, and to the extent that government does intrude, it's not perceived as overreaching. Despite the hysterical claims by some people (not necessarily Libertarians), the U.S. is not a police state, and Americans are among the freest people on Earth. Even we would agree that government, especially on the federal level, is too large and tries to do too much, but when we look around at the alternatives in other countries - even other U.S. states - we've got to admit that freedom and liberty works pretty well, and there's more of it here already than anywhere else.

[archy]

Signed members as of 6-19-2003: 4,179

[archy]

*Porcupine list* ping!

-archy-/-

[mvpel]

I just signed up last week. My wife and I are looking at a move to New Hampshire from California.

[Dan(9698)]

Wyoming is a small population, but is already mostly Republican.

20,000 more will not have any effect.

Republicans can also be self serving. We need a viable opposition here.

The politicals here are in bed with oil companies.

There is not a chance Democrats will amount to much here as the state is conservative. Republicans take the voters for granted, so do what their pals want knowing they will not pay much of a price for it.

It would take at least 100,000 to make much difference.

[Dan(9698)]

Also people are moving out of Wyoming because there are not many jobs.

[Sonny M]

It would take at least 100,000 to make much difference.

On there own, your right. However, if they join the republican party, they can control the primaries and then pull this off. 20,000 people joining a political party, in a small state like that, gives them a huge chance to pull it off.

[katz]

I've been considering this ever since reading about it in the Washington Times 4-25-03 by COEUR D'ALENE(AP) article.

[Dan(9698)]

Republicans already control both houses, and normally the Governor also.

The last gov is Republican, but was in bed with energy so much a Democrat won this time.

The real problem though, is there are not enough jobs to attract that many people.

As I said, the population of Wyoming is decreasing.

The saying here is "Last on out turn off the lights."

[archy]

Wyoming is a small population, but is already mostly Republican.

20,000 more will not have any effect.

Republicans can also be self serving. We need a viable opposition here.

I think you'd find some interesting primary battles, and some changes in political platforms, if Wyoming would happen to be the initial *goal state* chosen. Since my granddad's old Homestead Act plot is in Wyoming [Weston County, near Newscastle] if it is the one picked, I plan to relocate there within 30 days of the choice; I'm expecting the vote to take place in around 3 months or so, but that could go a month or two either way.

But whether whatever *Porcupine party* emerges from the influx, it'll be an influence on the chosen location, whether it's a matter of throwing rascals out and replacing them with new, improved rascals, getting some platform planks and policies via a coalition with Republicans making common cause, or finding viable political allies elsewhere should that become necessary.

Neither would I expect the number to remain art 20K for very long; that's just the bottom-dollar number for those of the initial migration, and it could easily double or triple by the 2008 presidential election or the end of the decade. And as other residents move out, there'll be some more FSP-supporting porcupines to take their place.

[freeangel]

later

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

However, if they join the republican party, they can control the primaries and then pull this off.

And elect more phony, oligarchist Republicans? What good is that going to do us? I'm done with the Republican party. I'll only vote for them when they are the lesser of two evils. I want a new option.

[Sonny M]

And elect more phony, oligarchist Republicans? What good is that going to do us? I'm done with the Republican party.

I think you misunderstood me. With 20,000 new voters, they could put up there own canidate in the primaries, across the state, and elect there own people. I hate to use this term, but they would be like RINO's, republicans in name only, except they would really be libertarian.

A libertarian running as a republican is not that unusual, there is a congressman now who is a libertarian, but registerd to the republican party. If these libertarians follow that route in a small state, they can easily control the state and implement there agenda.

Any state, no matter how small, would require much more then 20,000 people to change it significanly. However, by being attached to a party, you automatically get those voters who will vote the ticket, no matter who is running or what they say, i.e. the broken glass voters.

[mvpel]

One of the discussions in the political strategy forum at the Free State Project website is whether to join existing parties or to establish a new party. Some are suggesting that a new party, free of any political pressure points that arise from a nationwide reach (e.g., the national Party goals might not align with the Free State goals), might be a better approach.

[archy]

And elect more phony, oligarchist Republicans? What good is that going to do us? I'm done with the Republican party. I'll only vote for them when they are the lesser of two evils. I want a new option.

Or alternatively, when a Democrat is the incumbant and no better a choice than the Republican opponent. In that event, anything that can be done to eliminate or upset entrenched power is worth a shot.

But hopefully, in such cases the Porcupines will be offering a candidate of their own, with the electoral vote in at least some districts to back that up. I'd expect a long wait before there's ever a full slate of Porcupines on a state ballot, and that might never come to pass. But I could be wrong.

-archy-/-