Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Free state/ sister county strategy  (Read 4787 times)

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Free state/ sister county strategy
« on: January 14, 2003, 03:30:16 am »

The idea to break up the Free State Project into two free-state projects has once again come to the forefront of the discussion about 'which state?'.  

Is it an idea whose time has come?

Recently, the idea to go two separate ways with a couple of different of the smallest states, but with the same objective of bringing tangible political liberty to a statewide level has had much more resonance on this forum as participants have begun to realize how difficult any one of the states, let alone one of the larger 'compromise' states may be for 20,000 passionate yet largely inexperienced activists and for a varied group with entirely different preferences in climate, urbanization and various perceived political and cultural differences intolerable to a few.

Targeting two different states would obviously require thousands more activists and more dedication and more experience than targeting just one state, but some have suggested that if the FSP had two different states to chose from, the pool of potential activists would increase and also eliminate the certain 'culture shock' of bringing people into a state that was too far out of their element, both for the activist and the native population.

More people everyday are "taking the plunge" and committing themselves to this brave project of 'liberty in our lifetimes'.  But as membership growth rate towards 20,000 grows slower than the steady loss of freedom, some grow impatient with obtaining even the required critical mass of activists; let alone 30,000 or even 50,000 that it is estimated some 2-state schemes would require.  It seems that the Free State Project, as presently constituted is the best strategy for liberty in our lifetimes.

Or could it be better?  

Will we be better off by not entertaining such strategies of trying to garner support under two states?  Or, in the spirit of cooperation, is there another compromise, not on principle, but strategy that may bring the various factions a little closer together?  
_________________________________________
How about choosing a more workable state to free with a lower voting population, such as Wyoming or Vermont and then adding a single county outside that state in which to focus our liberation and liberty- motivation efforts.
_____________________________________
The prize obtained by freeing a mere county is not nearly as great as the political power of an entire state, but if our larger purpose is to hope to return this entire country back towards liberty, a state/county idea may be the best compromise of building a bigger tent that meets the needs of more activists,  while broadening our reach and gaining more support.
 
« Last Edit: January 14, 2003, 03:37:11 am by exitus »
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Free state/ sister county strategy
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2003, 04:01:16 am »

In presenting this idea of a one free state/ one county strategy, I would hope that it will be considered in light of the urgent need to free one state and adding the county being the alternate fall-back position that someone would consider. Furthermore, the county should be one that will provide synergy to our efforts in the FSP, and not merely as a distraction.

There may be many different approaches to a rationale as to 'which county?' and considering one county with a workable population yet closer to some of the ammenities not offered in some of our smaller states then re-opens candidates from all 50 states; however, a county that is in geographic proximity to our candidate state seems to make the most sense, even though it would tend to be similar in "culture, climate and regional measures" it would help us stay focused and in- line with our greater goal, the Free State and even provide a friendly gateway to our free state where liberty-minded people may easily chose to migrate to our chosen state once opportunities increase and even eventually drive a political wedge in a bordering state, all to our benefit.


Let me provide one example of just one idea among many, Bonneville county, Idaho together with Wyoming:


1. The livability issue.  There is a lot of cheap land and low rent and a growing job base in Idaho Falls that just does not  exist in Jackson, Wyoming on the other side of the mountain and state line, and solve some of the problems of getting more people who cannot yet move to Wyoming but could swallow a move to Idaho Falls a little better.
2.  Diversity of Federal Jurisdictions. there are many federal jurisdictions but for one example, Idaho is not covered by the Wyoming District Federal Court nor the U.S. tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, this may play into our hands as we attempt to do new things that may inspire judicial activism in high places.
3.  If the 'sister county' were located nearby geographically, such as the case with my example of Bonneville county, we could count on there being a larger pool of people to show-up for a political protest in Jackson than there would out of even far away Cheyenne.
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Free state/ sister county strategy
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2003, 04:22:30 am »

The following was presented to me from a prominent forum member via private message, and it is most certainly worth copying and posting here, I will keep it out of a quote box to keep it legible:


". . .    
 But you were proposing a county -- a doable county. Would you entertain a small group which is doable? How about a smaller city like your Idaho Falls example? This would be similar to playing a game of RISK and getting a beach head established in a small state and working out from there. The small state is crucial or the beach head may fail.

Wyoming with the intent to liberate Idaho Falls and Pocatello.
Wyoming with the intent to liberate Rapid City, South Dakota.
Wyoming with the intent to liberate Scottsbluff, Nebraska (NE was an FSP candidate).
Wyoming with the intent to liberate Ogden, Utah.
Wyoming with the intent to liberate Billings, Montana.

Vermont with the intent to liberate Upstate New York (really, that area wants to be rid of NYC).
Vermont with the intent to liberate Grafton county in New Hampshire then almost anywhere in NH because these states are so close.

New Hampshire with the intent to liberate Burlington, Vermont.
New Hampshire with the intent to liberate Lowell and Lawrence, Mass.
New Hampshire with the intent to liberate Portland, Maine.

The latter and other ideas are beyond the FSP's short term ability (5-10 years).
Keep it doable.
The first three Wyoming ideas may be doable."
« Last Edit: January 14, 2003, 04:26:00 am by exitus »
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Free state/ sister county strategy
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2003, 05:06:54 am »

This could be a viable strategy if used as a stepping stone to the creation of a free state (the "beach head" idea you quoted above).  If the FSP itself does not consider a two-state approach, this could be a viable option for those who opted out of the chosen state to create a new project, as Jason mentioned.  And it would give you the added advantage of doing something more immediately since the FSP, if it does stay single state oriented, will not likely begin it's move en mass for a few years yet (until 20,000).

In time, you might attract enough interest to get another full fledged free state project underway (or form your own state out of counties you dominate if the entire state seems unworkable).

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Free state/ sister county strategy
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2003, 11:05:28 am »

. . . (or form your own state out of counties you dominate if the entire state seems unworkable).
There already is a historical precedent of similar actions that created the state of New Connecticut, now Vermont, as Vermonters such as Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys fought for the independence of the New Hampshire Grants from New York and the many conflicts over that which lasted for decades.

Relevant to this idea, I cite our U.S. Constitution:

Article IV; Section 3, Clause 1.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

I recognize the legal scholarship of forum member, RgnadKzin who pointed this one out on another thread.
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Hank

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
  • "The Men That Don't Fit In"
Re:Free state/ sister county strategy
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2003, 11:59:12 am »

Ooohhh,
I like this idea.
Pick a state with a large "sister-city" right across the border.
After all, the long range goal many have is to free most of the USA or at least enough states to keep the statists from changing the constitution by repealing amendments like the 2nd.  For that we have to have at least 13 states in our pocket.  Which state would be best for spreading our liberty so that we have those 13 states?  Let's look at this like we are playing RISK.  Which state would have the best chance of winning over its neighbors?


Idaho (WA, OR, NV, UT, WY, MT)
Wyoming (MT, ID, UT, CO, NE, SD)
South Dakota (ND, MT, WY, NE, IA, MN)

Montana (ID, WY, ND, SD)

North Dakota (MT, SD, MN)
New Hampshire (VT, MA, ME)
Vermont (NY, MA, NH)
Delaware (NJ, PA, MD)

Maine (NH)

Alaska (no neighbors)

Logged
There's A race of men that don't fit in,
A race that can't stay still;
So they break the hearts of kith and kin,
And they roam the world at will.
http://www.internal.org/view_poem.phtml?poemID=295

Dennis Wilson

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
  • Objectivist & Jeffersonian
    • Dennis Lee Wilson
Re:Free state/ sister county strategy
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2003, 10:21:54 pm »


Relevant to this idea, I cite our U.S. Constitution:

Article IV; Section 3, Clause 1.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.


Don't worry about the strength of the above quoted piece of the Constitution. It was only one of the things destroyed by Tyrant Abraham Lincoln when he carved West Virginia away from Virginia and created Nevada so he could have some more electorial votes.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2003, 10:24:21 pm by Dennis Wilson »
Logged
Existence exists and Man's mind is capable of knowing it.    Ayn Rand

Wyoming Success: photos of cities, mountains, rivers, and the beach http://members.aol.com/wyomingliberty
Free Wyoming: reports, lists, photos, links, and more http://www.geocities.com/freewyoming

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Free state/ sister county strategy
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2003, 03:39:52 am »

Ooohhh,
I like this idea.
Pick a state with a large "sister-city" right across the border.
After all, the long range goal many have is to free most of the USA or at least enough states to keep the statists from changing the constitution by repealing amendments like the 2nd.  For that we have to have at least 13 states in our pocket.  Which state would be best for spreading our liberty so that we have those 13 states?  Let's look at this like we are playing RISK.  Which state would have the best chance of winning over its neighbors?


Idaho (WA, OR, NV, UT, WY, MT)
Wyoming (MT, ID, UT, CO, NE, SD)
South Dakota (ND, MT, WY, NE, IA, MN)

Save IA and MN?  That is very doubtful.

Wyoming looks to be the best.  It could spread to ND without a problem.  Even, KS and OK should be doable.  AZ and NV could be added if CA does not destory them.  However, that is still just 12 states.  Maybe we can also work in AK :)

Anyway, if a state got as free as we want it.  The US government would not try to enfore a take-all-guns law in the Free State.

Quote
Montana (ID, WY, ND, SD)

North Dakota (MT, SD, MN)
New Hampshire (VT, MA, ME)
Vermont (NY, MA, NH)
Delaware (NJ, PA, MD)

NY and MA will never be saved.  I highly doubt that MD, PA, or NJ can be saved either.  The reason why many people moved to states like RI and PA is to get away from the facist of Boston before the American Revolution.
Logged

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Free state/ sister county strategy
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2003, 08:16:23 am »

Ooohhh,
I like this idea.
Pick a state with a large "sister-city" right across the border.
After all, the long range goal many have is to free most of the USA or at least enough states to keep the statists from changing the constitution by repealing amendments like the 2nd.  For that we have to have at least 13 states in our pocket.  Which state would be best for spreading our liberty so that we have those 13 states?  Let's look at this like we are playing RISK.  Which state would have the best chance of winning over its neighbors?


Idaho (WA, OR, NV, UT, WY, MT)
Wyoming (MT, ID, UT, CO, NE, SD)
South Dakota (ND, MT, WY, NE, IA, MN)

Montana (ID, WY, ND, SD)

North Dakota (MT, SD, MN)
New Hampshire (VT, MA, ME)
Vermont (NY, MA, NH)
Delaware (NJ, PA, MD)

Maine (NH)

Alaska (no neighbors)



It could prove to be a useful idea for those people who opted-out of certain states, but are still willing to move to a nearby state.  They could still participate in the free state from afar, but not so far that they are out of the picture.  Having a very friendly county on the border of the free state would be very useful strategy for many other reasons not even mentioned.



Quote
Which state would be best for spreading our liberty so that we have those 13 states?


I once attempted to answer that question here (Reply #4 on: February 24, 2003) --I find a lot of faults with my own analysis on this link,  but it offers a good starting point for someone who wants to start researching and asking this question.



Relevant to this idea, I cite our U.S. Constitution:
Article IV; Section 3, Clause 1.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Don't worry about the strength of the above quoted piece of the Constitution. It was only one of the things destroyed by Tyrant Abraham Lincoln when he carved West Virginia away from Virginia and created Nevada so he could have some more electorial votes.

Ah ha! You've helped me make more sense of a bit of history.  I read where Lincoln promoted the division of the very large Idaho Territory left after the creation of the Oregon Territory and called for the creation of the territories of Montana and Wyoming.  

I understand that the job of establishing the borders was done in such a hurry that nobody realized how small the northern panhandle was, and only after those states gained statehood, in Washington State they began requesting that their borders be moved eastward to Montana.   The same sort of use of incorrect maps, bad surveying and establishing of borders by a distant Congress had something to do with Alaska's bizarrely shaped panhandle also.
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

anything