Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy  (Read 32271 times)

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #60 on: January 17, 2003, 05:03:28 pm »

Joe, don't get cranky.  The point is that the FSP is committed to a plan to which 2500 people have already signed on, and to many more who will once a state is chosen.  

Anyone who thinks that they have a plan that:
a) is better than the FSP as stated
b) will succeed even in competition with the FSP
c) won't simply destroy the entire community of people who want to move to achieve liberty in their lifetime by splintering it unrecoverably
d) won't humiliate the libertarian movement more than it already has been by infighting, blue guys, spitting guys, Leadville, etc.

is always able to start their own project.

But this project is what it is.  And we want people with critical thinking skills and enthusiasm on board to help us implement the many tactical details (see Dada Orwell and his activism thread, for example).  But we don't need people who are using our resources to develop competing projects or splinter groups within the FSP.

That seems pragmatic to me.
Logged

TedApelt

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
  • Free 50 states - one at a time.
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #61 on: January 17, 2003, 06:04:03 pm »

Jason is the boss.
Elizabeth is his lieutenant.
Don't cross 'em.
I wish good luck to the rest of the committee members who actually are political pragmatists.
         

I'm with Joe on this one.  The FSP is beginning more and more to look like the organization I just left, and I don't like it.

I am very shocked and saddened by this whole thing.  I don't know what else to say at this point, except please don't delete Joe's posts, since they are so good.
Logged
How much political experience do you have?  Probably not enough.  Get some!  DO THIS NOW!!!

TedApelt

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
  • Free 50 states - one at a time.
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #62 on: January 17, 2003, 07:15:42 pm »

I do have something else to say.

Why can't the membership decide this?  I thought I joined an organization that had things decided by a vote of the membership.
Logged
How much political experience do you have?  Probably not enough.  Get some!  DO THIS NOW!!!

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #63 on: January 17, 2003, 07:34:03 pm »

We would *never* delete Joe's posts.  He has to do it himself if he truly wants it done.

What is shocking and saddening, exactly?
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #64 on: January 17, 2003, 07:49:53 pm »

Quote
Why can't the membership decide this?  I thought I joined an organization that had things decided by a vote of the membership.

First, I would ask why you thought everything would be decided by the membership.  Because I want to make sure that if we have misleading info on the site, we clean it up.

Second, while we put as many things as possible to the vote, we don't put everything to the vote.  This is a private, non-profit corporation.  The corporation was formed for the express purpose of moving to a single state -- in fact, here's the mission statement:

The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S., where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government. The success of the Free State Project would likely entail reductions in burdensome taxation and regulation, reforms in state and local law, an end to federal mandates, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.

And here's the Statement of Intent, signed by members:

I hereby state my solemn intent to move to a state of the United States designated by vote of Free State Project (FSP) participants as specified in the Participation Guidelines of the FSP. Once this move occurs, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. I have read and understood the Participation Guidelines of the FSP and agree to be bound by them.

So we really can't (and won't) put to a vote things like, "Should we change to the Free Cheese Project" or "Should we change to the Move to Ted's Favorite State" project.

We have committees which anyone can join which decided how to publicize the project, research the project, help with technology for the project.  We appreciate and support member input and activism in many areas.  Members will decide which state they move to.  

But we will not vote on changing the entire purpose of the FSP, especially when we have been perfectly clear from the very beginning about what the project is.
Logged

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #65 on: January 17, 2003, 08:06:51 pm »

Quote
We would *never* delete Joe's posts.  He has to do it himself if he truly wants it done.
On another thread
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=416
Quote
Jason wrote:
Quote
Hey Joe - did you delete almost 300 of your posts?
Yes.
I did so for the following reasons.
1) To eliminate potentially incriminating material
-- stuff that my future political enemies could use against me
since anything we publicly say could be used against us.
2) To eliminate that which did not bear directly upon success in getting enough qualified people to make a Free State successful and thus to give liberty as-we-once-knew-it a chance. Thus the stuff on religion, etc. was culled.
3) To eliminate duplication as much as possible.
4) To carve down the entire load so that a person could download it from my profile page. It times out with an error at 30 seconds (250 to 500 posts depending on the length (KB) of those posts). I've written far too much here for any reasonably busy person to absorb or even to sort through or find.
5) To make my posts and the number of posts briefer -- so that people can better understand what I've written. Thus I've culled my submissions from entire threads rather than having my submissions splattered all over this forum.
6) Others, not just Elizabeth, have posted that I say too much here (one of my posts was hacked by someone to make that point to me). Okay, I'll keep it specific to the task at hand.
7) I've stored all my previous submissions in my own archive of my material for use again at a future date when and where it may be appropriate. I'd rather have more control over the dissemination of my work.
8) I've tried to remove pointless cutting remarks from me toward others here. Again the focus is on the success of the Free State after the FSP moves its people, rather than on which philosophical belief is best.
9) I look forward to concentrating my efforts here on pragmatic discussion of how to actually win town, city, county, and state seats AND then HOW to practically implement the grand ideas proposed on these forums with those who've gained enough experience to be able to knowledgably participate in such discussions -- BEFORE they move (and thus know what they are moving into).
Later I deleted the above post along with another few dozen posts.
Thus you will find loose ends.  I apologize for those.
But if you need material, please message me since I've got most of my stuff archived.

P.S.
MouseBorg, one our most pragmatic, wise, insightful, and valued contributors with over a thousand posts, deleted all which were not in locked threads (leaving 99 to which he has added a precious few since). He too has taken on a local government board post to gain some experience and thus likely has little time for the games some play here.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #66 on: January 17, 2003, 08:13:08 pm »

Look, we've taken many suggestions in the past that have changed some fundamental aspect of the FSP project.  The change in the vote system was one such change; it eventually became obvious that the vote system we had originally settled on was really, really bad, and that we needed to change it.  In this case, an idea has been proposed that does not serve as a solution to an existing problem but may, in theory and at best, serve as an enhancement to the initial idea.  However, there are equally powerful arguments that it would drag down the idea.  Therefore, there is just not evidence compelling enough to warrant the drastic and cataclysmic change that the proposal would require.  This has nothing to do with, "I want to keep this project the way it is because it's mine, nyah!"  What nonsense.  The fact that I've fallen in with other suggested changes in the past that did have merit disproves such an accusation.

I'm further puzzled that anyone who signed onto a program would become "shocked and saddened" when the program remained the same as it was when he signed onto it.  Speaking for myself, I would only be "shocked and saddened" if I signed onto something and then the terms were changed mid-stream.  I suspect hundreds, perhaps thousands, of our members would think the same way had this proposal gone through.  I guess it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" in this case for the Board & me.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #67 on: January 17, 2003, 08:14:49 pm »


MouseBorg, one our most pragmatic, wise, insightful, and valued contributors with over a thousand posts, deleted all which were not in locked threads (leaving 99 to which he has added a precious few since). He too has taken on a local government board post to gain some experience and thus likely has little time for the games some play here.

I noticed that Mouseborg left and was wondering why; I assumed he had gotten very busy.  I didn't know that he deleted his posts; I wonder why he did?
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #68 on: January 17, 2003, 09:09:45 pm »

Ted, Joe, there just comes a time when you have to go along. I don't know how else to put it.

I started this thread because of the talk about it on different threads, and because I thought of a factor that cast it in a new light (perhaps someone else had already discussed these aspects, who knows...)  I thought it was a pretty good idea - not great, but pretty good. I was hoping to convince the "powers that be".

I didn't. Oh, well, so it goes! It would be egotistical for me to push it further. I'm not (that much) an egotist, and I'm not going to sabotage the effort by continuing in this vein. Some things are more important than my feelings and opinions, and any time I don't think so I can always collect my marbles and walk away.

Ted, I know you latched on to this because it made Delaware look like it would be chosen. I'm sorry it didn't fly for you, and I'm sorry it looks like Delaware won't be the chosen state.

Quote
This has nothing to do with, "I want to keep this project the way it is because it's mine, nyah!"  What nonsense.

Well, Jason, I think it does, although I certainly wouldn't put it that way.  ;)  It's clear that FSP is run either by you or by a committee, and either way it's the same, as far as the rest of us are concerned. I accept that you/they run it, and I'm glad someone at least is doing so. If this effort was a libertarian democracy, I truly doubt anything useful would get done, knowing libertarians! I've also found you willing to take some suggestions I've come up with, at least, so I'm content. Any way I can help the effort, I'll do so.

Again, I really hope we can put this one to bed. Oh, and Joe, please don't delete your posts.
Logged

TedApelt

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
  • Free 50 states - one at a time.
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #69 on: January 17, 2003, 09:31:50 pm »

What is shocking and saddening, exactly?
That you are not allowing the membership to decide whether or not to change or amend the mission statement or the Participation Guidelines.

At the time I signed on, I knew that you had previously changed the method of voting on the states, and I think that the change was a good one.  The previous method was clearly a bad one, and I can't imagine what you must have been thinking when you chose it.

I also ASSUMMED that the change in voting method was done by a vote of the membership.  Apparently, it wasn't.  How was it done then?  I have looked over your documents again, and while it does say that the Participation Guidelines can be changed, it does not specify the manner of change.  In fact, it does not say much of anything (not even the usual refrence to Robert's Rule of Order), and does not appear to be well thought out.

I really wish now that I had been more careful before I had signed on to this thing.
Logged
How much political experience do you have?  Probably not enough.  Get some!  DO THIS NOW!!!

TedApelt

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
  • Free 50 states - one at a time.
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #70 on: January 17, 2003, 10:20:57 pm »

Ted, Joe, there just comes a time when you have to go along. I don't know how else to put it.

I will.  I don't want to make a big fight over this.  However, I do wish they would explain things better on how decisions are made.

Quote
Ted, I know you latched on to this because it made Delaware look like it would be chosen. I'm sorry it didn't fly for you, and I'm sorry it looks like Delaware won't be the chosen state.

Actually, I latched on to this because it was the perfect answer to the insane east-west war that plagues the FSP.

Another reason was Joe's posts about how hard it is for easterners to get along with westerners, and how westerners distrust easterners.  His story about how a second generation person wasn't considered a true local is especially chilling.  How many FSP members are aware of this problem?  How many knew of it when they signed on?

Before this whole thing started, my top three choices were DE>NH>ID, with VT near the bottom.  Now all the western states are on the bottom, and I am wondering if I should opt out of all of them.  Not that there is reason why western states can't be free, it's just that it is becoming obvious to me that the ONLY people qualified to change western states are westerners.  Easterners simply won't be able to.

Anyway, don't worry about DE, I am analyzing how we can win there, and so far what I have found is very encouraging.  Lots of races with low win margins, no excessive gerrymandering, and a lot of swing voters.  The more I study it, the more excited I get, and the more convinced I am that this is the state for us, even if it is not part of a combo.

Quote
Well, Jason, I think it does, although I certainly wouldn't put it that way.  ;)  It's clear that FSP is run either by you or by a committee, and either way it's the same, as far as the rest of us are concerned. I accept that you/they run it, and I'm glad someone at least is doing so. If this effort was a libertarian democracy, I truly doubt anything useful would get done, knowing libertarians! I've also found you willing to take some suggestions I've come up with, at least, so I'm content.

I have no idea how the FSP is run, and I really wish I had found out before I signed up.

Logged
How much political experience do you have?  Probably not enough.  Get some!  DO THIS NOW!!!

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #71 on: January 17, 2003, 10:52:19 pm »

I think that is a reasonable question.  Jason, perhaps we could put it in the FAQ? Something like this (just a draft):

Q.  How are decisions made in the FSP?

A.  The largest and most important decision -- which state -- will be made by a vote of the membership, as outlined in the Participation Guidelines. [link to "which state" FAQ and Guidelines]

For day-to-day management decisions, the Free State Project, Inc., is a private, non-profit corporation.  Corporate decisions are ultimately made by the Board of Directors [include link].  

The various committees, however, are empowered to make certain decisions in several areas such as research, technology, and publicity.  They also make proposals for major decisions (those involving spending, for example) to the Board.  These committees are open to anyone, including non-members.

We do our best to make decisions with input from the membership, and any significant changes to the Project Guidelines allow any signed member to opt out, thus ensuring that no member is committed to a project significantly different from what he/she signed up for.


*************************

Ted, let me explain something else to you -- perhaps a problem in distinguishing the FSP, Inc. from the Free State is the issue.

The FSP, Inc. is a private corporation which is trying to get 20,000 libertarians in one place.  We are *not* interested, however, in being the government of the Free State.  We forsee the FSP, Inc. as either disbanding after the move, or morphing into an advisory/educational think tank.  We aren't proposing that we make all the decisions (or any of them) in the Free State.

But, as the FSP, Inc., we need to make the best decisions we can to achieve the goals of the organization -- which is to move to a single state.

And that's something you haven't addressed -- why did you sign up for the FSP, knowing it was for a single state and then complain because we won't change it to a multiple state project?  As Jason said, it seems that a) we can't win, and b) we are doing the best we can for the members we have by staying true to the project they signed up for.
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #72 on: January 17, 2003, 10:58:31 pm »

I also ASSUMMED that the change in voting method was done by a vote of the membership.  Apparently, it wasn't.  How was it done then?  

We made the voting methods change exactly the way we would make any major changes.  Many people brought up problems with CC, and Jason started to see they had a point.  A debate here and on the mailing list was started to discuss alternatives.  Jason did a thought experiment here on the board, resulting in much more discussion.  Then he and another board member did more research, based on the many discussions.  Jason wrote a paper and made a proposal to the Board.  Then the Board voted to amend the Guidelines.

Please note, though, that the voting method, while a major change, did not change the nature of the project.  The voting method was a tactical change.  What you want would be a change in the entire basis of the project -- changing a single state project where we condense our forces, into a multiple state project where we scatter our forces.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2003, 11:02:55 pm by Elizabeth »
Logged

TedApelt

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
  • Free 50 states - one at a time.
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #73 on: January 17, 2003, 11:33:59 pm »

The FSP, Inc. is a private corporation which is trying to get 20,000 libertarians in one place.  We are *not* interested, however, in being the government of the Free State.  We forsee the FSP, Inc. as either disbanding after the move, or morphing into an advisory/educational think tank.  We aren't proposing that we make all the decisions (or any of them) in the Free State.

But, as the FSP, Inc., we need to make the best decisions we can to achieve the goals of the organization -- which is to move to a single state.

You keep saying "we".  Who is this "we"???  How many?  What are their names?  How are they chosen?  And, WHY, WHY, WHY IS THIS NOT EXPLAINED ANYWHERE???

I don't know why I didn't ask these questions before I joined, but I can only say that for some reason it just simply didn't occur to me.
Quote
And that's something you haven't addressed -- why did you sign up for the FSP, knowing it was for a single state and then complain because we won't change it to a multiple state project?  As Jason said, it seems that a) we can't win, and b) we are doing the best we can for the members we have by staying true to the project they signed up for.

At the time I signed up, I had absolutely no idea that this east-west thing was such a problem.

Let me put it this way.  I was born in Miami.  This makes me a true Floridian, someone actually born in the state.  Where my parents born in Florida?  Heck, no.  My mother was born in upstate NY, my dad was born in Chicago.

None of this matters to Floridians.  I was born here, that makes me a native, and a rarity.  They could absolutely care less about how many generations I have been here.  Heck, just about everybody here is from somewhere else, and almost nobody was actually born here.

Live in FL for as little as a year, and you're a local.  No one cares, not very much anyway, if you have been here longer.  (It does help a little to be a native, but only a little.)  And, they certainly don't care where your parents were born, to say nothing about generations before them.

Joe's post about the fourth generation candidate besting the third generation candidate while the second generation candidate apologized for being such a newcomer was a real eye opener.  So were all his other posts on the differences between east and west.  So were all the posts from other people on the differences between east and west.

I now see things very differently than I did before.
Logged
How much political experience do you have?  Probably not enough.  Get some!  DO THIS NOW!!!

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #74 on: January 18, 2003, 12:01:07 am »

You keep saying "we".  Who is this "we"???  How many?  What are their names?  How are they chosen?  And, WHY, WHY, WHY IS THIS NOT EXPLAINED ANYWHERE???

We, as I explained, is the Board of Directors.

You can find out all about us here:
http://www.freestateproject.com/about.htm

and how many and how we are chosen here:
http://www.freestateproject.com/corpbylaws.htm

All that info is on the website and has been from the very beginning.  Previously it was under a link called "About" but is now under a link called "Leadership" -- both of which have been always linked from the front page (and all other major pages) of the website.

I agree that a FAQ on decision-making processes might be useful.  See my draft, above.

How much of this is "I'm not getting what I want, so it must be your fault from hiding info from me!", Ted?  Be realistic.  We have always had info on the website about:

1) It's a single state project
2) Who the leadership is
3) How to get in contact with them
4) How they're chosen
5) How many there are
6) The corporate nature of the FSP, Inc. (including our pending 501c3 status)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Up
 

anything