What Does the Free State Project Really Give Us?

[Jordan]

I want to pose a very serious question about what the Free State Project gives the Liberty Movement as we think about new ways to libertarianize (nice word, huh?) government.

Suppose we get a good majority in the New Hampshire General Court which is made up of 400 house seats. To do so, we need at least 200 winners. That gives us control of one state.

But how much does it really help insofar as changing things on a national scale? There are a total of four federal seats that come from New Hampshire - two in the House of Representatives, two in the Senate.

Work vs. Reward

Wouldn't it be better to have candidates take local offices in other states? If we dedicate resources to a single state (New Hampshire) the best that we could get on the federal level is only 4 seats out of 535. Do we really need 200 people in the state house just to win 4 federal seats? Really?

Justin Amash and Thomas Massie both "upgraded" from state and local positions into the federal government. This should be our way of taking over DC. It seems to me that allocating resources to take over a whole state is quite wasteful - 200 people in 50 different states with Republican leaning districts seems a hell of a lot more useful than 200 people in a single state with only 4 federal positions.

Just my opinion. I'm interested in hearing the viewpoints of others.

[parocks]

One of the purposes of the Free State Project is to make NH a good place to live, without a whole bunch of big government. It isn't about Federal.

[TheTexan]

By concentrating our efforts on a single state, it does a few things:
1) pushes the envelope for liberty
2) sets an example for other states to follow
3) provides a constructive outlet for outside-the-system activism
4) better leverages limited resources

Another thing to keep in mind is that we, as lovers of liberty, are a minority. Democracies inherently favor the majority. If you can't get that 50.1%, then you get 0. It's far better to get 50% in one state than 5% in 10 states.

[mport1]

People have been to achieve liberty for the entire U.S. for a very long time with no success. At my most generous estimate, liberty leaning people probably make up 5% of the population. True principled libertarians, maybe .5% (again if I'm generous). Unless we can get those numbers up dramatically in the very short term, there is zero chance of changing things on a national scale.

The only thing that makes sense is to concentrate activism in one area and do the best to make that place freer (still a HUGE uphill battle). The short term goal shouldn't be to free the whole country, just that area. Hopefully New Hampshire would succeed peacefully from the U.S. Then over time as the area prospered, people would see the ideas of liberty in action and other areas would be more likely to try freedom.

[Keith and stuff]

Wouldn't it be better to have candidates take local offices in other states? If we dedicate resources to a single state (New Hampshire) the best that we could get on the federal level is only 4 seats out of 535. Do we really need 200 people in the state house just to win 4 federal seats? Really?

Ideally, every single politician in the world would like freedom. The free the world project has been happening forever and is a failure. The free all 50 states project has been happening for 100s of years and is a failure. It it time to time something different. I am not sure what winning 200 state house seats has to do with wining 4 federal seats.


Justin Amash and Thomas Massie both "upgraded" from state and local positions into the federal government. This should be our way of taking over DC. It seems to me that allocating resources to take over a whole state is quite wasteful - 200 people in 50 different states with Republican leaning districts seems a hell of a lot more useful than 200 people in a single state with only 4 federal positions.

We aren't going to takeover DC. We aren't going to takeover MI and we aren't going to takeover NH. If your goal is to takeover something, you likely won't get anywhere. As for electing 100s of liberty folks to DC, not gonna happen. It has been tried since the start of the US and the federal government is bigger and in more debt than ever before.


Just my opinion. I'm interested in hearing the viewpoints of others.

Some people actually want freedom. They are willing to try somewhat realistic approaches to achieve the goal of freedom somewhere. It makes sense to me. I'm glad that both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have endorsed the FSP on more than 1 occasion.

I want to see the whole world free. IMO, the best way to start down that path is to concentrate 20,000 or so liberty activists in 1 low populated state with an easy to navigate political system and a voting population which which has at least demonstrated that it sort of likes freedom, at least some of the time. 10 such possible locations were looked at. NH won the which state vote. Some people have moved. More will move in the future. Lots of positive developments have happened in NH and in other states because of the FSP. Other states are already starting to be improved because of some of the ideas coming out of NH.

http://freestateproject.org/intro/ron_paul

[NoOneButPaul]

I want to pose a very serious question about what the Free State Project gives the Liberty Movement as we think about new ways to libertarianize (nice word, huh?) government.

Suppose we get a good majority in the New Hampshire General Court which is made up of 400 house seats. To do so, we need at least 200 winners. That gives us control of one state.

But how much does it really help insofar as changing things on a national scale? There are a total of four federal seats that come from New Hampshire - two in the House of Representatives, two in the Senate.

Work vs. Reward

Wouldn't it be better to have candidates take local offices in other states? If we dedicate resources to a single state (New Hampshire) the best that we could get on the federal level is only 4 seats out of 535. Do we really need 200 people in the state house just to win 4 federal seats? Really?

Justin Amash and Thomas Massie both "upgraded" from state and local positions into the federal government. This should be our way of taking over DC. It seems to me that allocating resources to take over a whole state is quite wasteful - 200 people in 50 different states with Republican leaning districts seems a hell of a lot more useful than 200 people in a single state with only 4 federal positions.

Just my opinion. I'm interested in hearing the viewpoints of others.

Let's say they do get the majority (they aren't that far) and austrian free market principles make New Hampshire by far the most prosperous state in the nation.

That would kind of help our argument on a national scale in a massive way.

[Jeremy]

The FSP makes sense. A few local offices scattered through out a dozen states doesn't mean much to us unless they plan to later run for a federal office like Amash and Massie. I really don't care much about local politics. But NH has a good amount of liberty candidates in office that can actually impact the state's policies. NH is also extremely important in presidential politics, a swing state, and small enough to handle. The FSP is a pretty good idea and I'd say they made the best choice when picking a state.

[Keith and stuff]

I agree with Jeremy. NH has the first primary in the nation. Many of the presidential primary debates are in NH. You get a chance to personally meet all of the candidates for president in NH. NH is a great place to ask the candidates pressing questions on camera. NH is a swing state; although, at least for President, it tends to go more Democratic than Republican. NH has the 1st 2 communities to vote in the county on election day.

I'm not a huge supporter of putting a lot of energy behind national politics but if presidential politics is your thing, when population is considered, NH is the most important state in the US when it comes to presidential politics.

[Henry Rogue]

Let's say they do get the majority (they aren't that far) and austrian free market principles make New Hampshire by far the most prosperous state in the nation.

That would kind of help our argument on a national scale in a massive way.
Yep, 50 States, 50 experiments. Success is copied.

[Maximus]

Plus, if they actually do take power, we could put that pesky 10th Amendment into action from the State level and start nullifying.

And also, our movement currently (Not including those near us and allies) has 1 Senate seat (Paul), and 3 House seats (Amash, Massie, Bentivolio). The 4 seats you speak of aren't exactly worthless to us.

[WilliamShrugged]

What does it give us??? A Home...

[jbauer]

We were up in the North East this past week and you guys have some F'ed up Laws/Taxes etc etc. No wonder you guys are lookign for a free state. I'd suggest trying on the South for a change. Our trip also shows me why some people thought Rmoney was a conservative.

[Keith and stuff]

We were up in the North East this past week and you guys have some F'ed up Laws/Taxes etc etc. No wonder you guys are lookign for a free state. I'd suggest trying on the South for a change. Our trip also shows me why some people thought Rmoney was a conservative.

New Hampshire is not representative of the entire Northeast and vice versa. NH stands out nationwide for lack of laws. Children don't have to legally wear helmets on motorcycles. There aren't learner's permits for driving. We don't have an adult seat belt law. Auto insurance isn't required. The only knife law is that felons cannot own/use dangerous knifes. There is no general sales tax. There is no wage tax. Most business taxes for small companies are avoidable. There is no personal property tax. NH is the premier destination in the US for trusts.

Saying you were in the Northeast doesn't mean much. This is the Northeast. http://goo.gl/maps/5VdZZ

NH isn't like NJ except for the lower than average gas taxes, gas prices and beaches and high pay compared to most of the country.

States all over the county were looked at, as long as they had low populations. New Mexico was rules out because the population was too high. Same for Nevada. Delaware was included in the vote but did poorly. I don't know all of the reasons DE did poorly in the FSP which state vote. Some of the reasons are the oppressive firearm laws, the high crime, the very small amount of land, the possible danger from natural and man made disasters... Several of us have moved up from the South and we were elected in NH. I know a state rep from NV, a couple from TN, 1 from NC and so on. Many of us have been elected to other offices. We have written bills, testified for and against bills, passed and stopped bills.

[thoughtomator]

I'd be part of the Free State Project if it was located in a tolerable climate. Summer people deserve freedom too!

[specsaregood]

NH isn't like NJ except for the lower than average gas taxes, gas prices and beaches and high pay compared to most of the country.


Now now, dont forget the extremely high property taxes, they have that in common as well.

[Keith and stuff]

Now now, dont forget the extremely high property taxes, they have that in common as well.

Lol. Good point. Though parts of NH don't have property taxes at all. Parts of NH also have extremely low property taxes, so it depends. But yes, I beleive that when average amount paid is figured, NJ is the worst as a state, and NH is 2nd, 3rd or 4th worst, depending on which figures you look at. Then, again, I know people who own their own home in the NH Seacoast (no income tax, no sales tax) and pay less than $2,000 a year in property taxes. Than I know a guy on Long Island who owns his own home (and has to pay both the NY income tax and NY sales tax, not to mention cigar taxes, liquor tax (2 things NH doesn't have) and around 50cents more per gallon in the cost of gas) and pays around $15,000 a year in property taxes.

[snowdog2012]

Wouldn't it be better to have candidates take local offices in other states? If we dedicate resources to a single state (New Hampshire) the best that we could get on the federal level is only 4 seats out of 535. Do we really need 200 people in the state house just to win 4 federal seats? Really?


The numbers just aren't there to win the US Congress anytime soon. Just aren't enough Ron Pauls out there.

Libertarian Party barely gets 1% and they've tried for 40 years.

New Hampshire has more libertarians elected now than all 40 years of Libertarian Party.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that concentrating efforts in one state is the most brilliant and ingenius strategy.

[muzzled dogg]

What does it give us??? A Home...

it has given me a home

[angelatc]

New Hampshire is not representative of the entire Northeast and vice versa. NH stands out nationwide for lack of laws. Children don't have to legally wear helmets on motorcycles. There aren't learner's permits for driving. We don't have an adult seat belt law. Auto insurance isn't required. The only knife law is that felons cannot own/use dangerous knifes. There is no general sales tax. There is no wage tax. Most business taxes for small companies are avoidable. There is no personal property tax. NH is the premier destination in the US for trusts.

Saying you were in the Northeast doesn't mean much. This is the Northeast. http://goo.gl/maps/5VdZZ

NH isn't like NJ except for the lower than average gas taxes, gas prices and beaches and high pay compared to most of the country.

States all over the county were looked at, as long as they had low populations. New Mexico was rules out because the population was too high. Same for Nevada. Delaware was included in the vote but did poorly. I don't know all of the reasons DE did poorly in the FSP which state vote. Some of the reasons are the oppressive firearm laws, the high crime, the very small amount of land, the possible danger from natural and man made disasters... Several of us have moved up from the South and we were elected in NH. I know a state rep from NV, a couple from TN, 1 from NC and so on. Many of us have been elected to other offices. We have written bills, testified for and against bills, passed and stopped bills.

I thought the seat belt law passed?

[Keith and stuff]

I thought the seat belt law passed?

The Democratic controlled everything in 2008/2009 and a group of free staters took the lead and stopped it in the NH Senate even though the NH Senate was 14-10 Democrat then. It was unclear if the governor would sign it, as he seemed to be in favor of a secondary law but the law the federal government tried to bribe NH with was a primary enforcement law.

Yes, it is possible for a group of 2 people to take a lead and encourage a group of 30 people to encourage a group of 100s of people to get active and stop a bad bill on a state level in NH. I know, we did it.

[Elwar]

The Free State Project creates a crucible of liberty which can then be used throughout the rest of the country.

Instead of:

"If you don't want any laws, why not just go to Somalia!"

You would have:

"If you don't want any laws, why not just go to New Hampshire!"...with the highest quality of living, lowest school dropout rates, best job rate, etc..

[Keith and stuff]

I thought the seat belt law passed?

Here you go. A national news story confirming that NH is the only state without a seat belt law for adults.

US seat belt use at all-time high
Posted: Friday, November 16, 2012 12:15 pm | Updated: 11:37 am, Fri Nov 16, 2012.
By Richard Simon Los Angeles Times
http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/mct/us-seat-belt-use-at-all-time-high/article_cca53759-eeb0-5445-91f7-adb1ab064314.html


In the new report, observations of drivers and front-seat passengers show seat belt use nationwide reached an all-time high of 86 percent last year, up from 75 percent a decade ago.

The biggest increase in seat belt use came in the South, increasing to 85 percent, up from 80 percent in 2011.

Seat belt use was highest in the West, at 94 percent, and lowest in the Northeast [folks in NH, MA and ME aren't friendly to seat belt use requirements], at 80 percent.


New Hampshire is the only state that doesn’t require seat belt use by adults.

BTW, last I checked MA and WY have the lowest seat belt use rates in the US, despite having laws requiring them. I guess seat belt laws is the 1 thing that folks in MA and WY can agree on :)

[tremendoustie]

I want to pose a very serious question about what the Free State Project gives the Liberty Movement as we think about new ways to libertarianize (nice word, huh?) government.

Suppose we get a good majority in the New Hampshire General Court which is made up of 400 house seats. To do so, we need at least 200 winners. That gives us control of one state.

But how much does it really help insofar as changing things on a national scale? There are a total of four federal seats that come from New Hampshire - two in the House of Representatives, two in the Senate.

Work vs. Reward

Wouldn't it be better to have candidates take local offices in other states? If we dedicate resources to a single state (New Hampshire) the best that we could get on the federal level is only 4 seats out of 535. Do we really need 200 people in the state house just to win 4 federal seats? Really?

Justin Amash and Thomas Massie both "upgraded" from state and local positions into the federal government. This should be our way of taking over DC. It seems to me that allocating resources to take over a whole state is quite wasteful - 200 people in 50 different states with Republican leaning districts seems a hell of a lot more useful than 200 people in a single state with only 4 federal positions.

Just my opinion. I'm interested in hearing the viewpoints of others.

In my opinion nullification and independence are much more feasible ways out from under the federal thumb, than trying to somehow change the culture of 300 million people to elect a vastly different congress and president. Frankly, at this point, I don't pay attention to federal politics; they're a lost cause imo. My only goal regarding the feds is to get my state to say "no" to them.