Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy  (Read 32267 times)

TedApelt

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
  • Free 50 states - one at a time.
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #75 on: January 18, 2003, 01:17:15 am »


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.


Correct.  Somehow this totally escaped my attention, and I did go through the entire FAQ before I signed up.

My suggestion is to put links to the corporate bylaws right where you sign up saying something like "Before joining, please read our bylaws. "(put hyperlink here).

In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you would address my concerns about western states being unworkable for easteners.  Hopefully we won't have this problem because an eastern state will be chosen.  However, people who don't understand the situation (Jason seems to be one of those) may prevail, and a western state may be chosen instead.  The result could be a disaster.
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 #76 on: January 18, 2003, 01:27:25 am »

As for the east-west problem, I agree that it is a concern.

The problem, from my POV, is that both groups are completely irrational.  Therefore, I cannot see a way to address the concerns.

If people are going to plug their ears and say loudly "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!" whenever a state not in their preferred location is discussed/proposed, there's not much we can do.

Remember, too, that while there are some VERY squeaky wheels around here, their assertions do NOT necessarily represent a) other members, or b) the truth.
Logged

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #77 on: January 18, 2003, 03:20:56 am »

I'm not too sure why I feel compelled to add to this thread at this point, but here goes.

First off, Jason (and the rest of you who agree with him), I've been an ID supporter from the beginning and I was *not* opposed to the two state combo idea.  I did (still do) see some benefit to it instead of just going to Idaho.  I pointed out one factor which could become useful later on (as in decades down the road): having 4 U.S. Senators instead of 2.  Of course, there are other issues too.  But that's all water under the bridge at this point.

Also, the people on this thread *do* (or did) seem to be cooperating much better once this idea got going.  So it is not as though this idea is without benefit, at least in terms of getting people to get along.

Having said all that, I'm just fine with leaving things the way they are.  Either we'll go to a state that I've included, or I'll cheer everyone on from afar (likely overseas if an opted-out-of state is chosen).  

So here's what I think is important:  Cooperate.  If Jason and the board want to keep it to a single state, that's just fine.  It's *their* baby.  The fact of the matter is, lots of us have had similar ideas to this.  *None* of us ever set up what he (they) have set up.  They are the leaders by virtue of simply doing something, so I'm happy to let them lead.  Even if we think the 2 state combo idea was swell, if it's not going to happen it's time to move on.

So when do we get back to Idaho????? ;)

V-

Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #78 on: January 18, 2003, 05:22:33 am »

As for the east-west problem, I agree that it is a concern.

The problem, from my POV, is that both groups are completely irrational.  Therefore, I cannot see a way to address the concerns.

What do you find so irrational about the groups involved or the discussion in general?  

Quote
If people are going to plug their ears and say loudly "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!" whenever a state not in their preferred location is discussed/proposed, there's not much we can do.

This has not happened all that often; most here give what they feel are valid reasons for the positions they hold, and whether those positions are indeed valid or not is another issue.  However, the inability of various people to agree with one another does not necessarily mean that they're not listening to one another or that they're being "irrational."
« Last Edit: January 18, 2003, 05:26:21 am by RobertH »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #79 on: January 18, 2003, 06:19:06 am »

Discussions like this one are moot.  And not just neutral in value, but in fact destructive to the FSP, because they divert energy from the important needs like RECRUITMENT, PUBLICITY, TECHNOLOGY, and RESEARCH.

If this is true, then the voting method should never have been changed because that's what people signed up for when they joined the FSP, and the board was wrong for even considering any arguments to the contrary.  Nevertheless it did consider them, and a fundamental aspect of the state selection process was changed as a result.  It's now agreed that this change was a good thing, but if the above philosophy had been enforced it never would have happened.

Discussion is never moot or destructive among those who consider themselves rational and open-minded, and for that reason, the above statement is, quite frankly, alarming.

"Having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."  - Benjamin Franklin

And we want people with critical thinking skills and enthusiasm on board to help us implement the many tactical details...But we don't need people who are using our resources to develop competing projects or splinter groups within the FSP.

People with critical thinking skills are going to start discussions like this one because it is inherent in their nature to question things and explore alternatives in search of better solutions.  

If the Guidelines can be changed so frequently and unilaterally, what, if anything, about the Project is secure & determinate?  ..."Since you're changing the Guidelines every other week, how would it hurt to include territories now?"

How many times have the guidelines been changed?  Certainly no one here has suggested changing them "every other week," nor is this likely to happen.  This is taking an argument to an unwarranted extreme in order to make it appear absurd, and it is itself absurd.  No one here has even so much as mentioned when the guidelines should be changed.  They hadn't even fully explored the possible combinations that could be proposed for such a change to say nothing of demanding that it happen this month!  Most of the discussion related to that issue has been about whether the FSP would even consider such a proposal in the first place, why it might be a good idea to do so, and which combinations would be best.  And the issue of changing the Free State Project guidelines is not automatically connected to the issue of expanding the project from states to territories.  That's a bit of a larger leap than the consideration (consideration mind you) of an additional state.

It's no surprise that apart from a few people on this forum, there is no demand for splitting this project.

Since most people in the FSP aren't on this forum at all, we really don't know what they're thinking, or what would appeal to them, do we?

Notice that all the people supporting dual-state options are people who support one of those states.  This is transparently a ploy to make it easier for one of the smallest-population states to win, whether by itself or in a combo.  There aren't any supporters of NH, AK, ID, MT, ME, and SD following this thread, but if there were, they would be screaming bloody murder, as well they should.

This implies some sort of underhanded attempt to sabotage the state selection choice and is a veritable slap in the face despite being downright ridiculous.  Of course people proposing dual-state options are likely to favor the proposed dual-states!  What's so surprising and outrageous about that!?  As for transparency, nothing on this thread is encrypted; it's all wide open for anyone and everyone to read if they choose.  If people who support NH, AK, ID, MT, ME and SD don't follow it, then that's their choice.

As for this being a "ploy" to make it easier for one of the smaller states to win, this idea is specifically geared toward combos of states that do not exceed the 1.5 million cut off point, which necessarily excludes the larger states from such considerations.  They are excluded by definition, not by subterfuge.  Do you think that anyone in the FSP is actually out to make it harder for their favored choice to win?  In fact, are their arguments not all directed to make it easier?  What's the difference with this idea?  There's nothing cloak-and-dagger or underhanded about it.

You yourself have said that states with over one million inhabitants would be very difficult to justify.  Was that also a transparent ploy to make it easier for one of the smaller states to win?  Should supporters of the larger states be screaming bloody murder about that as well?  Are you in fact trying to provoke them into doing so, as you imply that this discussion is doing?

No one here is conspiring to overthrow the FSP's leadership or doom the cause of liberty in this country, and I have absolutely no desire to stir up a hornet's nest here more than has already been done.  The fact of the matter is that I do not believe that the FSP can succeed in all of these states even with 20,000.  In fact, I think that there are only a few in which we would really stand a fighting chance, but that's just one person's opinion.  I personally favor Wyoming as the best state for liberty, but that's hardly a secret.  I supported a WY/DE combination here because I personally felt that it would potentially lead to the enlistment of more committed members who were better able to work with one another in those respective states.  Having a large army in one place is certainly an advantage if its regiments and divisions are capable of working well together, but many of history's most famous battles have gone to smaller, better harmonized armies that emerged victorious over larger forces.  Cannae and Chancellorsville come to mind immediately.

We do not have a unified force here.  A cursory glance through these threads will demonstrate that quite capably.  For that matter, we do not even know what more than half of this organization's members are thinking.  A general who does not know where most of his troops are to begin with can hardly be assured of his ability to move forward with any real purpose.  And I'm not referring to opt-outs here; I'm referring to what criteria they're using to judge what state is best for liberty.  Or are they just thinking of what state is best for them?  Human nature being what it indisputibly is, you judge for yourself what they're likely to do.

Anyway, like Varrin, I really don't know why I felt compelled to return to this matter.  I suppose I just felt the need to respond to some of the implications contained in various statements here that I thought of as unfounded and/or unjust.  This has become an emotional discussion, and it's probably best if it's just dropped since we appear to have a firm answer on the issue, and before we make enemies of each other.

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #80 on: January 18, 2003, 11:13:07 am »

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

No, it was done by consensus, as I think all changes to the Guidelines must be done.  There should be no changes to the Guidelines unless an overwhelming majority of people support them, and the minority that do not support them are nevertheless reconciled to them.  We had a long period of public comment on the proposed Guidelines change.  No one involved in those discussions objected to the change, though some had particular systems they may have favored over the one we eventually picked.  In the end, only a handful of people opted out of the Project because of the change, and none of them had been involved in the discussions on this forum and the mailing lists.  Consensus is not unanimity, but unanimity is impossible in a group of this size.  I do think consensus stands up well against all the other alternatives.  We can't have a membership vote on every harebrained idea that comes down the pike (not saying this is a harebrained idea, just making a point), and letting the majority triumph over a strongly opposed minority would also be counterproductive in a change of this magnitude. The Participation Guidelines should only be changed after a long period of public comment & if there are no reasonable arguments against the change.  I guess we should put this in the FAQ.
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 #81 on: January 18, 2003, 11:57:09 am »

I agree the FAQ should be changed, and I think the change Elizabeth suggested is a good one. Just so people know where they stand. It might avoid some future head-butting...
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #82 on: January 18, 2003, 12:01:44 pm »

As an aside, I think it's understandable why the FAQ didn't have anything about Participation Guidelines changes, because we never expect the Guidelines to require any changes at all!  The 2 changes that have been made were unexpected: serious flaws were suddenly revealed, and it became obvious that the change was necessary.  (The 1st change, BTW, was about a year ago - we removed a clause that implied that we expected all FSP members to vote.  It didn't change the intended meaning behind the Guidelines but cleared up a serious confusion.)
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

TedApelt

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
  • Free 50 states - one at a time.
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #83 on: January 18, 2003, 01:01:53 pm »

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

No, it was done by consensus, as I think all changes to the Guidelines must be done.  There should be no changes to the Guidelines unless an overwhelming majority of people support them, and the minority that do not support them are nevertheless reconciled to them.  We had a long period of public comment on the proposed Guidelines change.  No one involved in those discussions objected to the change, though some had particular systems they may have favored over the one we eventually picked.  In the end, only a handful of people opted out of the Project because of the change, and none of them had been involved in the discussions on this forum and the mailing lists.  Consensus is not unanimity, but unanimity is impossible in a group of this size.  I do think consensus stands up well against all the other alternatives.  

Good enough.  I am happy with that.  I was only saying that the FSP needs to reflect the will of the membership.   You do not need a formal vote of the membership every time to do that.

Having said that, it would not surprise me at all if the membership approved of the two state plan once it was properly explained to them, and once they understood the problem this east-west war thing presents.

The way I see it, if I had known then what I know now, I would have opted out of all western states when I signed up.  Instead, I no idea that this problem existed.  I am sure that this is true of many others as well, and I think you would have seen a heck of a lot more opting out of western states than you did if people knew the full story.

The thing that shocked me was the idea that there was no need at all to ask the membership about this.

Quote
The Participation Guidelines should only be changed after a long period of public comment & if there are no reasonable arguments against the change.  I guess we should put this in the FAQ.

Good idea.
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 #84 on: January 18, 2003, 01:32:56 pm »

As an aside, I think it's understandable why the FAQ didn't have anything about Participation Guidelines changes, because we never expect the Guidelines to require any changes at all!  

UNBELIEVABLE!!!  I simply can't believe what I am reading here!

I don't see how ANYONE, no matter how smart, can do a project like this without making a lot of changes along the way.  This has happened with the voting method.  I'm sure other changes need to be made as well.

The thing that scares me the most is the way it is becoming more and more clear that you haven't a clue of how to run a project of this kind.  You just don't get it.

I really hope that this problem with the FSP is fixed before we move anywhere, or the project will end in disaster.
Logged
How much political experience do you have?  Probably not enough.  Get some!  DO THIS NOW!!!

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #85 on: January 18, 2003, 01:45:55 pm »

This has to be the most thankless job on the planet.  Everyone thinks he can do it better than I.  Not a day goes by that I don't wish I could tell someone, "Here, you think you can do it better?  Go ahead, take my position."  It would make my life a heck of a lot easier.

But for the sake of freedom, I have to try not to let these jerks get me down.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2003, 01:46:14 pm by JasonPSorens »
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

TedApelt

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
  • Free 50 states - one at a time.
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #86 on: January 18, 2003, 02:03:22 pm »

I forgot to say that I don't know how to run an organization of this type either, but at least I am aware of that.

I do know, however, is that the single most important thing we can have is as much political experience we can possibly lay our hands on, combined with the willingness and determination to put this knowledge and experience to use in fighting some very tough battles.

If we don't know how to fight, and we are not willing to fight, all we are doing is rounding up 20,000 sheep for the slaughter.  I am not telling you that this is how it should be, I am telling you how it is.
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 #87 on: January 18, 2003, 02:42:06 pm »

The difference, Joe, is that FSP members are supposed to be supporters.  

Obviously, we know we will face opposition.  But does it always have to be FSP members who give us such a hard time, instead of jumping in and helping out?

The same people complaining that the FSP will never get off the ground because we won't do it their way are the reason it won't get off the ground if that happens.  Can't people see that working with people with whom you agree 90% is infinitely better than fighting the good fight alone?

Apparently some people are too selfish to be willing to work with others towards a common goal.  It has to be about them.
Logged

Mary Lou Seymour (libertymls)

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
  • Better to die on your feet than live on your knees
    • Liberty Activists
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #88 on: January 18, 2003, 04:00:19 pm »

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

Yeah, it seemed clear to me from the beginning the ONLY thing I as a member would vote on was the final state selection of ONE STATE, after 5000 was reached.

Quote
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.

Exactly. I myself joined the FSP precisely for that reason. It had a premise I thought viable. Pick ONE state. Not "go to some foreign country", not "set up a Galts Gulch somewhere", not "take over one county" not "take over 5 states". Presumably, thats why most folks joined. If they disagreed with the plan, WHY would they have signed up?

If the FSP suddenyly changed its bylaws and purpose at this point and went with this "hyperstate" idea I personally am outa here. I don't think its a viable strategy. 20,000 activists in a small state is barely enough, when you actually analyze the data. Waiting til we have 40,000 people (to impact two states) is impractical. It'll simply take too long.

The East-West "split" just isn't that serious.  Look at the info Jason posed about opt outs. So we may lose 500 people. Big deal.

Lets stick with the original premise and direct our energies to that end, rather than going off on "what ifs" here.

Logged
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation." L.Neil Smith

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #89 on: January 18, 2003, 06:36:00 pm »

Quote
I forgot to say that I don't know how to run an organization of this type either, but at least I am aware of that.

I do know, however, is that the single most important thing we can have is as much political experience we can possibly lay our hands on, combined with the willingness and determination to put this knowledge and experience to use in fighting some very tough battles.

If we don't know how to fight, and we are not willing to fight, all we are doing is rounding up 20,000 sheep for the slaughter.  I am not telling you that this is how it should be, I am telling you how it is.

Geez, Ted, lighten up!

There is no leader or group of leaders or organization that is perfect. Human beings are not capable of perfection. So, it is pretty silly to get petulant when Jason et. al. turns out not to be perfect.

Go read about the campaigns of George Washington in the Revolution. He went from one disaster to the next, against the most powerful country on the planet. Yet, he won in the long run.

Half the revolutions I've read about looked hopeless or near impossible.

We are not sheep going to slaughter. We are people moving to a state. Is that so difficult? So dangerous?

Take a look at the alternatives. If you want to continue to support some guy who will get 2% in an election, you're welcome to it. But I am done with that. FSP is the best thing going, and I'm not going to get mad if they don't take all my suggestions. Sheesh!  ::)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up