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 FranklinAnd 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.
