Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: JonECat on December 30, 2003, 01:04:26 pm

Title: Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: JonECat on December 30, 2003, 01:04:26 pm
I had heard mention of states like Wyoming and Montana as finalists for the FSP before NH was selected, will they be considered for any future FSP action??
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: Jhogun on December 30, 2003, 05:39:26 pm
A group of folks that used to be in the FSP but had opted out of eastern states have started the Free West Project.  They have a Yahoo message group.
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: rdeacon on December 30, 2003, 11:11:31 pm
The reason why we started with one state was simple: we doubted that we had the manpower to pull this off in two states, at least not in the beginning and not at the same time.  Sure, once the "message of liberty" gets out there will be liberty activists in all 50 states, but in order to get that message out we need 20,000 people in one state.  Perhaps after we set the foundation in NH we could look for volunteers to move out West and get to work there.

Assuming that we get to serious work in NH by 2010, than by 2015 we would have the required infrastructure to start seeding Wyoming or Montana.
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: Roycerson on January 02, 2004, 11:14:54 am
When we make headway in NH we won't have to go anywhere else.  People will see that freedom works, the rest will take care of itself.  
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: rdeacon on January 02, 2004, 01:47:25 pm
Of course this entire conversation is based on speculation.  If the movement takes off then we'll be a success, no need to continue.  But if the scenario becomes one of 1 free state and 49 police states, then perhaps it would behoove us to take the battle to another state.
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: JonECat on January 03, 2004, 06:44:56 pm
 I hope it does succeed In NH, and I hope it expands to other states, I just think there was an opportunity missed with the western region, when you consider states like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas all have a small population, and conservative leanings.  One takes off the others are likely to follow.  You could have your own country right there.
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: rdeacon on January 04, 2004, 01:01:06 am
Such was the opinion of a portion of the FSP membership.  In the end I think that NH is still the wisest choice.  The West will follow quickly, should the NH changes be politically profitable.  
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: Dave Mincin on January 05, 2004, 06:03:06 pm
Think we have way to much work ahead of us to be thinking about anything but the task at hand.  BTW we are a volunteer organization.
What are you doing to help? ;)

Dave
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: Dawn on January 05, 2004, 10:24:53 pm
Think we have way to much work ahead of us to be thinking about anything but the task at hand.  
Dave

Agreed. If others are already pursuing something out west, that's great but the FSP should stay on course to get 20,000 to move to the Free State.
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: rdeacon on January 06, 2004, 10:09:35 am
Agreed.  This wasn't a "planning session", just a bit of speculation.  As the Japanese say "Americans think about the next business quarter, we think about the next quarter century".  It never hurts to look at the endgame and make sure that current planning is kept in the correct context.
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: thrivetacobell on February 15, 2004, 03:25:28 pm
Definately a nice bit of speculation, rbdeacon.

I think N.H. was a wonderful choice. It isn't the largest state but were the FSP to show some success its not too hard to envision Maine following in our footsteps. Imagine, the Free States of New Hampshire and Maine, with all the coastline and room to grow they have. A large border with Canada in a relatively isolated corner of the country... How long before Vermont fell in as well.

Just continued speculation but damn, its nice to dream...
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: LeopardPM on February 15, 2004, 09:09:09 pm
from what I understand, Vermont would more likely go communistic that liberty-oriented....
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: George Reich on February 16, 2004, 12:02:25 am
from what I understand, Vermont would more likely go communistic that liberty-oriented....

Vermont might surprise you.  ;)
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: jeanius on February 16, 2004, 02:33:38 am
While we have achieved a significant milestone with choosing NH as our state we still have a *lot* of work to do.  It is flattering that other groups are emulating us.  However, what they are emulating is that we have gotten 5,000 people signed up and have voted.  *Now* we have to get 20,000 people signed up and everyone moved.  *Then* comes the real work of undoing years of expanding legislation and retreating liberties.  Expanding to other states would be a wonderful problem to have.  Let's get NH free first.

Jean
Title: Re:Why just one state, more in the future?
Post by: otaku on June 19, 2004, 02:00:46 pm
my state Idaho was also a possible choice for the project but lost. However we are included in the free west project I believe I already live here so it doesn't matter but If I move east NH is where I will move

Idaho isn't to bad but its on a downward spiral, my neighborhood is the biggest supporter of the Lp when it comes to elections  8)